Temurah 16b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara analyzes the words of Rabbi Shimon:

“And do they derive what is possible from what is otherwise possible?!”

For the fact that these three sin-offerings do not apply to a communal sin-offering is not a “halakha”; rather, the reason they do not apply to the community is that it is “impossible” for them to exist in the community, neither with regard to death nor with regard to being offered. And if so, how does Rabbi Shimon derive from them concerning the other two, that it is “possible” for them to exist in the community?

For Reish Lakish said: Four

dead sin-offerings

were given to them

by one halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and concerning the fifth another halakha was given to them, that it should graze. And they forgot which one was the fifth that should graze. Therefore, because of the uncertainty,

they established them as five,

and they treated all five stringently, and all of them die.

And since all four dead sin-offerings were stated in one halakha, it is obvious that they were stated in one manner, either concerning communal sin-offerings or concerning individual sin-offerings,

and the Gemara answers the question in two ways: in one way Reish Lakish answers it, and in the second way Rabbi Natan answers it. And the essence of their words is one answer: the halakha was not transmitted one by one—that is, one halakha concerning the offspring of a sin-offering, and another halakha concerning the temura of a sin-offering, and likewise concerning the other sin-offerings—and it was the Sages who counted them together until they counted them as a total of five sin-offerings. Rather, the halakha was given concerning all of them, as will be explained, in a single unit, and this was the wording of the halakha: These sin-offerings, this group and that group—their law is death [according to the words of Reish Lakish, or grazing according to the words of Rabbi Natan].

And since this is so, and since several of them do not apply to the community, it is understood that this general halakha was given only concerning an individual sin-offering!

It follows that there is here no deriving of one matter from another, “what is possible” from “what is impossible,” but only a clarification of the matter: that this halakha, which includes all the sin-offerings, applies only to individual sin-offerings. And from now on, the concealed within the halakha will be derived from the explicit within it.

And the Sages in the generation of Joshua concluded from this,

and

said:

If it enters your mind

that all four of them apply also

to the community,

how is it possible to say so? For

these,

these four,

do they exist in the community!?

Is it not clear that among them there are three that do not apply to the community? And even if we say that the one that goes to grazing is one of those three that do not apply to the community—and they are: the offspring, the temura, and the case where their owners died—in any event, the other two, which do not apply to the community, are included among the four whose law is death.

Rather, necessarily,

since within the four there are three or two that do not apply to the community, it follows that this halakha was transmitted only with regard to individual sin-offerings. And from now on,

the concealed will be derived

also—the halakha that one dies—

from the explicit,

from the one or two among the four that do apply to the community, and nevertheless the halakha was transmitted “explicitly,” that it applies only to an individual.

And in brief: There are not four sin-offerings in the community, and certainly the halakha was transmitted concerning an individual sin-offering! And the halakha was stated “explicitly” that even the one that applies to the community applies only to an individual.

These are the words of Reish Lakish in explaining the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Natan says in another manner.

Rabbi Natan says: One

of the five

was given to them

for death, by one halakha! And by a second halakha the other four were given for grazing! And they forgot which one was for death and which were for grazing,

and they established it as five,

and because of the uncertainty the Sages established them and imposed stringency concerning all five, that their law is to die.

Before Rabbi Natan finishes his answer according to his approach, the Gemara raises an objection:

Why did they establish and impose stringency concerning all five because of one of them?

After all, the five sin-offerings are divided according to two “series.” One series is those whose owners obtained atonement and those whose year passed, which apply to an individual and to the community; and the second series is the offspring of a sin-offering, the temura of a sin-offering, and the case where their owners died, which apply only to an individual—

And now, even though they forgot which one is the one that goes to death, in any event

let us see:

for it is possible to examine: this fifth one, concerning which the halakha was transmitted that it should die,

in which series were they taught it

to which “series” it belongs—

whether concerning an individual,

if it belongs to the “series” of the three that apply only to an individual,

or concerning the community,

or to the series of the two that also apply to the community—

And if they remembered that the one that dies is from the series of those that apply to an individual and to the community, one of the two, they would decree death only concerning the second one in that series, while the three in the other series would remain under their halakha, that they graze and do not die [even as an individual]. And if they remembered that it is from the series of those that apply only to an individual, one of the three, they would decree death only concerning the other two in that series, while the two in the other series would remain under their halakha, that they graze and do not die. And why did they decree death concerning all five?

And we answer:

They forgot two things!

They forgot to which “series” it belonged, and they also forgot which one it was! And therefore they decreed death concerning all five.

And now the Gemara concludes the words of Rabbi Natan:

And

since they forgot everything, therefore

it was difficult for them,

those Sages who lived in the days of Joshua found this difficult: whether the halakha was stated also concerning the community, and they decided the matter on the basis of this reasoning:

If it enters your mind

that the halakha that four of them graze was stated also

concerning the community,

how is it possible to say so?

Do these exist in the community?

Can all four be possible in the community? After all, three of them do not apply to the community, and at the very least two of them do not apply to the community, as explained.

Rather, conclude from this: The concealed will be derived from the explicit: what is

the

explicitly concerning an individual

only

and not concerning the community,

even though among them there is one or two that apply to the community.

Also the concealed—

concerning an individual and not concerning the community.

This is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Yehuda disputes him in this reasoning, and holds that even though within the four there are some that do not apply to the community, nevertheless they were not transmitted as a single unit, either concerning an individual or concerning an individual and the community; and whichever of them can be in the community dies, even though there are some among them that do not apply to the community.

Mishna:

After the distinction between an individual offering and a communal offering has been explained, the Mishna explains the distinction between temura and ordinary consecrated offerings—that is, an animal that was consecrated with the initial consecration.

There is a stringency with consecrated offerings over temura, and a stringency with temura over consecrated offerings.

And the Mishna explains:

The stringency with consecrated offerings over temura:

a.

Consecrated offerings produce temura, but temura does not produce temura,

as explained above in the Mishna [12a] and in the Gemara [13a], because it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “and its replacement,” and we derive: but not the replacement of its replacement.

b.

The community and partners consecrate, but do not effect temura,

as explained above in the Mishna [13a].

c.

And they consecrate limbs and fetuses,

but do not effect temura,

as explained above [10b], that it is impossible to effect temura upon a limb of an unconsecrated animal and to say that this limb is the replacement of the animal; and this is the position of Rabbi Yehuda. Likewise, it is impossible to consecrate an unconsecrated fetus by means of temura.

One who consecrates an unblemished animal and afterward a blemish befell it: its consecrated status is stringent, so that even if they redeem it, it has only the allowance of eating, and it is forbidden to shear it and to work with it. But one who consecrates a blemished animal, whose “blemish preceded its consecration”: its consecrated status is lenient, and it leaves to the unconsecrated state through redemption, and it is permitted for shearing and work.

This is not so with one who substitutes an unconsecrated blemished animal for an unblemished consecrated animal: its consecrated status is stringent, like one who consecrates an unblemished animal, and it does not leave to the unconsecrated state for shearing and work, and its consecrated status is not lenient like that of one who consecrates a blemished animal.

The stringency with temura over consecrated offerings:

a.

The consecrated status

that is, the consecrated status of temura

takes effect upon an animal with a permanent blemish.

b.

And it does not leave to the unconsecrated state ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page-column location")

to be shorn and worked.

For the Torah revealed concerning temura that even if their blemish preceded their consecration, the consecrated status of temura takes hold of them, as it is stated [there]: “good for bad and bad for good”; and “bad” means a blemished animal, as explained above [9a].