Study Temurah folio 18A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי דאשם — גמירי לה דלרעייה אזלא, דכל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה. לעולם בחטאת, והילכתא גמירי לה למיתה, וקרא למעוטי להקרבה.
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 Talmud 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.
והא בהא תליא, כיון דלמיתה אזלא — ממילא לא קרבה! אלא הלכתא לחטאת, וקרא למעוטי תמורת אשם.
The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.
הא נמי הילכתא גמירי לה, דאמרי: כל שבחטאת מתה, באשם רועה. אלא קרא מיבעי ליה, דאי עבר ומקריב — קאי בעשה.
The Talmud asks: But this halakha with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering was also learned by the rabbis 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.