Temurah 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the preceding Mishna that only an individual can effect temura, whereas the community cannot effect temura. Our Mishna comes to explain the other distinctions between individual offerings and communal offerings.

Mishna:

There are distinctions among individual offerings

that do not exist among communal offerings. And there are distinctions among communal offerings that do not exist among individual offerings—

There are distinctions among individual offerings that do not exist among communal offerings:

a.

Individual offerings can effect temura, whereas communal offerings cannot effect temura.

b.

Individual offerings—

apply

both to

offerings

of males and to females, whereas

those

of the community apply only to males.

For most communal offerings are burnt-offerings, and a burnt-offering is male. Likewise, all the communal sin-offerings are he-goats, as it is stated: “And one he-goat as a sin-offering” [Numbers 28:29]. A communal peace-offering does not apply except in the case of the two lambs of Shavuot, and they too are males.

There are individual offerings for which the Torah established a time for their sacrifice, such as the offerings of a woman who has given birth, whose time is when her days of purity are completed, or the offerings of a leper, which are sacrificed on the eighth day of his purification. And some of them have no fixed time for their sacrifice, such as an offering for a sin involving forbidden fat. Nevertheless, even among those for which a time has been established, there are some that one remains obligated to sacrifice even if their time has passed, to sacrifice them. But communal offerings for which a time has been established, if they were not sacrificed at their appointed time, can no longer be sacrificed. And when the offering itself was not sacrificed, its libations are not brought.

But if the community sacrificed the offering at its appointed time and did not bring its libations—for example, because no libations were available to them—it is possible to bring its libations even from then until ten days later.

c.

Individual offerings entail liability for them and liability for their libations. And

those

of the community do not entail liability for them, nor liability for their libations. However,

also with regard to communal offerings,

there is liability for their libations once the offering itself has been sacrificed,

if the offering was sacrificed at its appointed time but its libations were not sacrificed with it.

There are distinctions among communal offerings that do not exist among individual offerings —

Communal offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity,

whereas

those

of an individual do not override

either Shabbat or ritual impurity.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Meir said:

How can you say that all individual offerings do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity,

when surely the daily offering of the High Priest,

which he sacrifices every day—half in the morning and half in the evening—

and the bull

of the High Priest

of Yom Kippur are individual offerings, and

nevertheless

they override Shabbat and ritual impurity!

Thus, the reason for overriding Shabbat and ritual impurity is not that they are communal offerings,

but

because

their time

is fixed.

That is: Any offering for which, once its time has passed, there is no compensation—even if it is an individual offering—overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity. Conversely, any offering for which there is no fixed time—even if it is a communal offering— does not override them.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

An individual offering can effect temura, whereas communal offerings cannot effect temura.

The wording implies that all individual offerings can effect temura. Therefore the Gemara wonders:

Is this a general rule?! But there are birds,

turtledoves and young pigeons that are brought for a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering,

which are individual offerings,

and

nevertheless

cannot effect temura,

as explained above [13a]?

And we answer:

When it teaches,

the Mishna teaches this general rule

with regard to animals,

only with regard to animals, in which temura is possible; and with regard to them the Mishna stated the distinction between an individual and the community.

And we object:

But what of the offspring

of a consecrated animal,

which is an individual offering—

and cannot effect temura?

How, then, did the Mishna teach that all individual offerings can effect temura?

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this,

whose Mishna is it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who says [

above, 12a]:

An offspring can effect temura.

And we object:

But temura itself is an individual offering—

and temura cannot effect temura.

This demonstrates that not all individual offerings can effect temura.

And we answer:

When it teaches,

what the Mishna teaches

it teaches with regard to the principal sacrifice,

only with regard to the offering itself [the initial consecration], in which temura applies; with regard to it the Mishna stated the distinction between an individual and the community, but not with regard to temura.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this

[now that you have reached this conclusion], after this answer, it is unnecessary to establish the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. Rather,

you may even say it is in accordance with the Rabbis,

even if the Mishna is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that an offspring can effect temura, there is likewise no difficulty. For it may be answered:

When it teaches,

what the Mishna teaches regarding that which can effect temura,

it teaches with regard to the principal sacrifice,

and not with regard to an offspring.

We learned in our Mishna:

Individual offerings apply both to males and to females.

The wording implies that all individual offerings—burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings—apply both to males and to females. Therefore we wonder:

Is this a general rule?! But

the

burnt-offering, which is an individual offering,

comes from a male

[it may be brought only from males], whereas

it does not come from a female,

as it is stated [Leviticus 1]: “If his offering is a burnt-offering, he shall offer a male without blemish.” How, then, did the Mishna say that all individual offerings apply also to females?

And we answer: Indeed, an animal burnt-offering is not brought from females, but

there is a bird burnt-offering,

which is also brought from females.

As it was taught:

The Torah states [Leviticus 22] with regard to a burnt-offering: “For your acceptance, an unblemished male among cattle, among sheep, or among goats.” And we expound that the laws of

perfection and maleness

in a burnt-offering apply only

to an animal,

for only in the case of an animal burnt-offering is the disqualification of a blemish or of being female stated [in the cases of a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering],

but there are no requirements of perfection and maleness for birds.

They are not disqualified by a blemish [but by a missing limb], and the Torah likewise did not require that they specifically be males.

Therefore, the Mishna’s wording—that an individual offering applies both to males and to females—is correct with regard to a bird burnt-offering.

And we object:

But what of a sin-offering, which is an individual offering and comes from a female,

a ewe or she-goat [Leviticus 4],

and does not come from a male,

how could the Mishna say that all individual offerings apply also to males?

And we answer: Not every individual sin-offering is female, for

there is the he-goat

a sin-offering of

a ruler, which comes from a male,

as it is stated [Leviticus 4]: “When a ruler sins, and brings his offering, a he-goat, a male without blemish.”

And we object:

But there is

an individual

guilt-offering, which comes from a male and does not come from a female,

as it is stated [Leviticus 5, 14, and Numbers 6]: “A sheep” or “a ram.” How, then, did the Mishna say that all individual offerings apply also to females?

And we answer:

When we say

the Mishna stated this general rule only with regard to

an offering that exists both among individuals and among the community.

This is not the case with

a guilt-offering,

which exists only

among individuals;

only an individual brings a guilt-offering. Whereas

among the community it does not exist;

there is no communal guilt-offering at all. Therefore, the Mishna was not speaking of a guilt-offering at all, nor did it distinguish in its regard between an individual and the community.

And if you wish, say: Does it teach, “all individual offerings,”

so that it would imply that every individual offering applies both to males and to females?!

It teaches, “There are distinctions among offerings”!

This implies that there is one offering in which there is a distinction between an individual and the community.

And what is it?

Which offering is this? It is the offering of

peace-offerings! For if he wishes,

if the individual wishes,

he brings a female, and if he wishes, he brings a male. In contrast to

unlike

the communal peace-offerings,

which are the two lambs of Shavuot brought with the two loaves,

which come only from males,

as they are exclusively males, as explained in the Mishna.

We learned in our Mishna:

Individual offerings entail liability for them and for their libations, whereas communal offerings do not entail liability for them or for their libations. However, there is liability for their libations once the offering itself has been sacrificed.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

derived—that communal offerings which were not sacrificed at their appointed time cannot be compensated for by sacrificing them after their appointed time?

As the Sages taught:

The Torah states in the section of the appointed times [Leviticus 23]: “These are the appointed times of the Lord, which you shall proclaim as sacred convocations, to offer a fire-offering to the Lord, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering, a sacrifice and libations, the matter of each day on its day.” This refers to the additional offerings, which are “a fire-offering to the Lord,” and which are sacrificed on the festival more than on other days. And from what is stated,

“the matter of each day,”

we expound:

It teaches

that the verse

declares the entire day fit for the additional offerings,

provided that they precede the afternoon daily burnt-offering, which is the final offering of all the day’s offerings. And from what is stated

“on its day,”

we expound:

It teaches that if the day passed and he did not bring them, he is not liable for them.

The beraita continues:

One might have thought that he would not be liable for their libations even though the offering itself had already been sacrificed? The verse therefore states

in the section of the additional offerings [Numbers 29]

“their meal-offering and their libations,”

which is stated there many times, and we expound:

“Their meal-offering and their libations”—

at night,

so that if he did not sacrifice the meal-offering and the libations during the day, he sacrifices them at night, even though the sacrifice of offerings is valid only during the day.

And we further expound:

“Their meal-offering and their libations”—

on the following day.

If he did not sacrifice them that day—for example, because they were not available to him—he is obligated to sacrifice them from then until ten days later, and even indefinitely.

Resh Lakish said: From here,

from this exposition we derive that he is obligated to sacrifice them after their appointed time: The Torah states [Leviticus 23]: “These are the appointed times of the Lord … to offer a fire-offering to the Lord, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering, a sacrifice and libations, the matter of each day on its day.

Besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.”

And we expound [through the principle of juxtaposition]: By juxtaposing “the matter of each day on its day” with “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord,” the Torah comes to teach that on a Festival one sacrifices, in addition to that day’s obligations, the meal-offering and libations of Shabbat—that is, those of the preceding day, which was Shabbat—if he did not sacrifice the meal-offering and libations on the preceding day. We now have two expositions concerning completing the sacrifice of libations on the following day: one, “their meal-offering and their libations,” and the other, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Therefore, the Gemara explains:

And both are necessary,

for both expositions are needed!

For if the Merciful One had written, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord,”

but had not written, “their meal-offering and their libations”—

I would have said: During the day

only on the day after Shabbat, which is a Festival,

yes,

indeed he sacrifices them together with that day’s offerings,

but

those

at night, no,

he does not sacrifice them, just as other offerings are sacrificed only during the day. Therefore,

the verse states, “and their meal-offering and their libations,”

to teach you that this is so even at night.

But,

conversely,

if the Merciful One had written, “their meal-offering and their libations,” but had not written, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord,” I would have said: At night

following it, immediately after the day on which he was obligated to sacrifice it,

yes,

then he sacrifices them, as will be explained, whereas

during the day,

on the following day, and all the more so ten days later,

no,

he cannot sacrifice them; their time has passed and their offering is annulled. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord,” to teach us that he is obligated to sacrifice them even on the following day, and it is not said with regard to libations, “once their time has passed, their offering is annulled.”

The Gemara discusses this:

And what is different

between night and day? That is, why would we have thought to expound “their meal-offering and their libations” specifically with regard to night? There is no apparent reason to expound that it applies specifically at night. And we answer:

Because with regard to consecrated offerings, the night follows the preceding day

That is, the laws of consecrated offerings differ from the other laws of the Torah, in which the day follows the night, from evening to evening. With regard to consecrated offerings, however, the night follows the day, from morning to morning. This is learned from what the Torah states [Leviticus 7]: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offering shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until morning.” Thus, the entire night until morning is called “the day of his offering.”

Therefore, we would have thought that he can sacrifice the libations only during the following night, since it is still considered its day. Therefore, the Torah wrote, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord,” to teach us that he sacrifices them even on the following day.

And we conclude:

Both are necessary

for the two expositions.

And we ask:

Can libations be sacrificed at night?

The Gemara cites a beraita to challenge the statement that libations may be sacrificed at night.

The Torah states at the end of the sections of the offerings [Leviticus 7]: “This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, of the sin-offering, of the guilt-offering, of the inauguration-offerings, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai, on the day that He commanded the Children of Israel to bring their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai.” And we expound from what is stated, “on the day that He commanded,” that all these offerings are sacrificed during the day and not at night. From this they are called “matters whose usual time for sacrifice is during the day.”

Nevertheless, the limbs of a burnt-offering and the fats of all the offerings that are burned on the arrangement upon the altar are burned throughout the night. That is, even after sunset, one places them on the arrangement, and they continue to burn and be consumed throughout the night if there was not enough time to burn them during the day. The Sages derived this from what is stated [Leviticus 6]: “This is the law of the burnt-offering: It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all night until morning.” From this they are called “matters whose usual time for sacrifice is during the night.”

The beraita discusses items whose manner is to be offered during the day: Is it permitted to place them on the pyre while it is still day, close to sunset, and let them continue to be consumed throughout the night, or must they be consumed while it is still day?

And didn’t we learn:

From what the Torah states, “It is the burnt offering upon its pyre on the altar all night,”

I have only

learned from this verse

that items whose manner is to be offered at night, such as the limbs and the fats, are placed

on the pyre

and burned

them

from sunset

after sunset

and continue to be consumed throughout the entire night.

Items whose manner is to be offered during the day, such as frankincense and the meal offering accompanying libations—

which are placed and burned from sunset—

Before the Gemara finishes citing the entire beraita, it is astonished: Could it have entered your mind that it means

“from sunset”—

that it would be conceivable that it is permitted to burn them after sunset?!

But you said that they are “items whose manner is to be offered during the day”!

The Gemara explains:

Rather,

this is the version of the beraita: Items whose manner is to be offered during the day, which are placed

with the coming of sunset,

close to sunset while it is still day,

and continue to be consumed throughout the entire night—how do we know

that this is valid?

The verse states [

there]:

“This is the law of the burnt offering,”

and from that which is stated, “the law of the burnt offering,”

it includes

the Torah included all items placed upon the altar that continue to be consumed throughout the night. That is to say, from that which is stated, “It is the burnt offering,” we learn that the limbs and fats may be placed even after sunset, excluding items whose manner is to be offered during the day. And from that which is stated, “the law of the burnt offering,” other items whose manner is to be offered during the day are included: If one placed them before sunset, they continue to be consumed throughout the entire night. This concludes the words of the beraita.

The Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita that the time for

the meal offering accompanying libations is during the day

specifically, and it is not offered at night. This is difficult: How, then, did we expound above, “their meal offerings and their libations,” to include even at night?

We resolve the contradiction:

Rami bar Hama said: It is not difficult

to reconcile the contradiction between the two beraitot.

Here,

the beraita that expounded “their meal offerings and their libations—even at night” is referring

to becoming consecrated,

for if one placed the meal offering into a service vessel at night, it became consecrated with intrinsic sanctity, and thereafter it cannot revert to non-sacred status even through redemption [as is the law with meal offerings, whose intrinsic sanctity begins when they are placed in a service vessel; until then, their sanctity is sanctity of value, as explained in the Mishna in tractate Meila 10a]. And the verse comes to teach that “night is its time” with regard to the imposition of intrinsic sanctity in a service vessel—

And here,

the beraita that stated that the meal offering accompanying libations is among the items “whose manner is to be offered during the day”—and not at night—is referring

to being offered,

for it is not offered at night, but only during the day [even if it became consecrated at night, one waits until morning for it ].

Rava said to him:

There is no distinction between consecration in a service vessel and offering! Rather,

if it becomes consecrated, it may likewise be offered

at night!

As it is taught:

This is the principle: Anything offered during the day,

such as meal offerings, frankincense, blood, and incense,

becomes consecrated only during the day.

And if one placed it in a service vessel at night, it did not become consecrated.

And anything offered at night,

such as the meal offering accompanying libations,

becomes consecrated

whether during the day or at night—

And it is proven,

that if the meal offering accompanying libations is offered specifically during the day, it does not become consecrated at night; how, then, could Rami bar Hama say that it becomes consecrated at night?

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

The meal offering accompanying libations is indeed offered at night. And the fact that the beraita listed the meal offering accompanying libations among the items whose manner is to be offered during the day is an error.

Erase [

delete

the meal offering accompanying libations from this teaching,

from this beraita. And this is how it should read instead: Items whose manner is to be offered during the day, such as the handful and the frankincense, which are placed, and so forth.

When

he went up,

Rav Dimi

to Eretz Yisrael,

he found

he found

Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived that libations brought with the sacrifice

may be offered only during the day? The verse states [

Numbers 29]:

“And for your libations and your peace offerings,”

and we expound:

Just as peace offerings

are offered

during the day

and not at night,

so too, libations are offered during the day,

since they became consecrated through the slaughter of the sacrifice, they are like the sacrifice itself.

Upon hearing this,

Rav Dimi said: If I were to find

someone

if I were to find someone traveling down to Babylonia—

I would write a letter and send it to Rav Yosef

I would write a letter and send it to Rav Yosef, who was sitting in Babylonia, and I would write to him: