Temurah 17

לגזוז וליעבד רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה ולא עשה שוגג כמזיד במוקדשין

in terms of it being permitted to shear its wool and to perform labor with it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah rendered the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution, as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. But it did not render the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to consecrated items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective.

רבי אלעזר אומר הכלאים והטרפה והיוצא דופן וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין

Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration, and if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a tereifa, they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אמר קרא יהיה קדש לרבות שוגג כמזיד

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that substitution applies whether one substitutes unwittingly or intentionally? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall substitute his animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). The apparently superfluous term “shall be” serves to include the case of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally, with regard to substitution.

היכי דמי שוגג כמזיד אמר חזקיה כסבור שהוא מותר להמיר גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which one who acts unwittingly is considered like one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution? Ḥizkiyya said: The circumstances are of one who thinks that it is permitted to substitute one animal for another. With regard to a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, and the individual is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, due to the inclusion of “shall be,” despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. But in the equivalent case, where one unwittingly sanctified an animal that was unfit to be an offering, he is not liable to receive lashes, as in this case one is liable to receive lashes only if he acted intentionally and with prior warning.

לישנא אחרינא גבי תמורה קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש

The Gemara cites an alternative version of Ḥizkiyya’s statement: With regard to a non-sacred animal that was declared a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, despite the fact that one acted unwittingly. But with regard to sacrificial animals, if it was consecrated unwittingly it is not consecrated.

ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן אמרי כסבור לומר תמורת עולה ואמר תמורת שלמים לישנא אחרינא גבי תמורת שלמים קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan both state a different example of the ruling discussed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. They say that the case is of one who thinks to say: This animal shall be a substitute for a burnt offering that I own, but he unwittingly said: This animal shall be a substitute for a peace offering that I own. In such a case involving substitution he is liable to receive lashes, but if he erred in this manner with regard to consecration, he is exempt from lashes. The Gemara cites an alternative version: With regard to a substitute of a peace offering, if one unwittingly declared it a substitute, it is consecrated. With regard to sacrificial animals, if the animal was unwittingly consecrated, it is not consecrated.

לישנא אחרינא כסבור לומר שחור ואמר לבן גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי

The Gemara cites another alternative version of the difference between substitution and consecration of an animal: The case is of one who thinks to say: The first black animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute, but he unwittingly said: The first white animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute. With regard to a substitute, the white animal is consecrated, and the individual therefore is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. Conversely, in a similar case of sacrificial animals, e.g., one meant to say: The first blemished black animal that comes out of my house shall be consecrated, but he unwittingly said: The first blemished white animal shall be consecrated, if a white animal came out of his house, the animal is not consecrated, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes.

רבי יוחנן אמר באומר תצא זו ותיכנס זו גבי קדשים באומר שנולד בהם מום נאכלין בלא פדיון לא לקי גבי תמורה לקי

Rabbi Yoḥanan says another case of unwitting substitution of an animal. This is referring to a case of one who says: Let this animal emerge from its sanctity and become non-sacred, and let that animal enter in its place and become consecrated. This person acted unwittingly, because he mistakenly thought that in this manner the consecrated animal would no longer be sacred. With regard to a similar case involving sacrificial animals, where he has a sacrificial animal that developed a blemish and he incorrectly says: Any animals that have developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption, and he proceeded to eat the animal without first redeeming it, he is not liable to receive lashes. But with regard to a substitute, if he did this he would be liable to receive lashes, as stated above.

רב ששת אמר באומר אכנס לבית זה ואקדיש ואמיר מדעתי ונכנס והמיר והקדיש שלא מדעתו גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי

Rav Sheshet says yet another example of unwittingly performing substitution: It is referring to a case of one who says: I will enter this house and consecrate an animal intentionally, or: I will enter this house and substitute an animal intentionally, and he entered and substituted or consecrated unintentionally, i.e., he acted absentmindedly. For his transgression with regard to substitution he is liable to receive lashes, and for his transgression with regard to sacrificial animals he is not liable to receive lashes.

רבי אלעזר אומר הכלאים והטרפה וכו׳ אמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין לעשות תמורה

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal, are neither sacred through consecration nor do they sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sanctified by substitution, i.e., if one said that an animal in any of these categories should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sanctified. And the clause that they do not sanctify non-sacred animals means that if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.

תניא אמר רבי מאיר ומאחר שאין קדושין מהיכן מקדישין אלא אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואחר כך נטרפה במקדיש ולד ויצא [דרך] דופן אבל כלאים וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס אי אתה מוצא אלא בולדי קדשים ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר הולד עושה תמורה

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since these animals do not become sanctified, how can it even be suggested that they could sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find that the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it became a tereifa, or when one sanctifies a fetus and it emerged from the womb by caesarean section. But with regard to an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, you can find this ruling only in a case of the offspring of consecrated female animals, which have sanctity without an act of consecration. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute.

אמר רב פפא מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר כבהמה טמאה מה בהמה טמאה לא קרבה ולא נחתא לה קדושת הגוף אף הנך לא קרבי ולא נחתא להו קדושת הגוף

Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? He holds that the halakhot of these categories of animal is like that of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed as an offering and inherent sanctity does not rest upon it, so too, these animals in the categories of a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite may not be sacrificed as offerings and inherent sanctity does not rest upon them.

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והרי בעל מום דלא קריב ונחתא ליה קדושת הגוף אמר ליה בעל מום קרב במינו אי הכי טרפה נמי קא קרבה במינה

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But why aren’t animals in these categories compared to a blemished animal, which may not be sacrificed as an offering but nevertheless inherent sanctity does rest upon it? Rava said to Rav Pappa in response: Although a blemished animal is not sacrificed on the altar, another animal of its same type, i.e., an unblemished animal, is sacrificed as an offering. By contrast, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite may never be sacrificed. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, what will you say about a tereifa, as other animals of its type are sacrificed. According to your explanation, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa?

אלא אמר רבא כבהמה טמאה מה בהמה טמאה פסול הגוף אף כל פסול הגוף לאפוקי בעל מום דפסול חסרון נינהו

Rather, Rava retracts his previous answer and instead says: The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal, in the following manner: Just as the category of a non-kosher domesticated animal is an inherent disqualification, and such an animal cannot be sanctified or render another animal sanctified, so too the same applies to any other category of animal that is an inherent disqualification, such as a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite. This serves to exclude blemished animals, which are disqualified only because they lack certain limbs.

אמר ליה רב אדא לרבא והלא שרוע וקלוט כתיב בפרשה והא הני פסול הגוף נינהו

Rav Adda raised a difficulty with regard to this answer and said to Rava: Is the disqualification of a blemished animal always because it is lacking a limb? But isn’t the phrase: Too long or closed hooves, written in the passage of the Torah addressing blemishes that disqualify an animal; and these are inherent disqualifications. The verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or closed hooves, you may offer for a voluntary offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23).

אלא אמר רבא כבהמה [טמאה] מה בהמה טמאה דליכא במינה אף כל דליכא במינה לאפוקי בעל מום דהא איכא במינה

Rather, Rava again retracted his previous answer and said: The explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is as I explained initially. The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type, so too these halakhot apply to any animal that is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, because other animals of its type are sacrificed on the altar.

מאי אמרת טרפה איכא במינה לא דמיא לבעל מום בהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה וטרפה אסורה באכילה לאפוקי בעל מום דמותר באכילה

What did you say to challenge this explanation? You said that in the case of a tereifa, there are other animals of its type that are sacrificed, and if so, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa? The answer is that a tereifa is not similar to a blemished animal, as a non-kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, and a tereifa is forbidden for consumption. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, which is permitted for consumption.

אמר שמואל המקדיש את הטריפה צריכה מום קבוע לפדות עליו שמע מינה פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

§ With regard to a tereifa, Shmuel says: One who consecrates an animal that is a tereifa is required to wait until it develops a permanent blemish, on account of which he may redeem it. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this statement of Shmuel. Since the meat of a tereifa is unfit for consumption and may only be fed to the dogs, why does it require redemption? Should one learn from this that one redeems sacrificial animals in order to feed them to the dogs? But this is contrary to the accepted halakha (see 31a).

אלא אימא עושה קדושה (למיתה כסבור מותר להקדיש בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח גבי תמורה קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש) למות ורבי אושעיא אומר אינה אלא כמקדיש עצים ואבנים בלבד

Rather, say that the statement of Shmuel was as follows: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, it becomes sanctified until it is time for the animal to die, so that even after its death it must be buried and may not be redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya says: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, this is like nothing other than one who consecrates mere wood and stones, which cannot become sanctified with inherent sanctity but only for their value, and which therefore can be redeemed. Consequently, a consecrated tereifa animal may be redeemed even if it is going to be fed to the dogs.

תנן כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין אותן לפי שאין פודין הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים טעמא שנעשו הא היו מעיקרא פודין אותן דלמא האי תנא סבר כל היכא דלא חזי לגופה לא נחתא לה קדושת הגוף

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel. We learned in a mishna (31a): With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifa, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, because their consumption is forbidden; and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to the dogs. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason that they may not be redeemed is because they became tereifa after they had already been consecrated. Consequently, if they were already tereifa from the outset, when they were consecrated, one may redeem them. The Gemara answers: Perhaps this tanna holds that anywhere that an animal itself is not fit for sacrifice, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it at all.

תא שמע רבי אלעזר אומר הכלאים ויוצא דופן וטריפה וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין לעשות תמורה

The Gemara raises another challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from the mishna. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. And Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sacred with regard to substitution, i.e., if one said that any of these animals should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal it does not become sanctified; and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals, i.e., if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.

ותניא אמר רבי מאיר וכי מאחר שאין קדושין מהיכן מקדישין אלא אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואחר כך נטרפה הא היתה טרפה מעיקרא לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since they do not become sanctified, how can they sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa. The Gemara explains the difficulty: This indicates that if it was a tereifa from the outset, then inherent sanctity does not rest upon it; this ruling contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who says that such an animal must be buried when it dies.

אמר לך שמואל דלמא הך תנא נמי סבר כל היכא דלא חזיא לגופה לא נחתא לה קדושת הגוף

The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have said to you: Perhaps this tanna also holds that anywhere that an animal is not fit itself for sacrificing, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it. Shmuel himself holds in accordance with those who disagree with this opinion.

הדרן עלך יש בקרבנות

מתני׳ אלו קדשים שוולדותיהן ותמורותיהן כיוצא בהן ולד שלמים ותמורתן ולדן וולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם הרי הן שלמים וטעונין סמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק

MISHNA: These are the sacrificial animals for which the halakhic status of their offspring and substitutes is like their own halakhic status: The offspring of peace offerings, and their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring or their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time [ad sof kol ha’olam]. They are all endowed with the sanctity and halakhic status of peace offerings, and therefore they require placing hands on the head of the animal, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh in order to give them to the priest.

גמ׳ כיון דתנא ולדן וולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם למה לי תנא דידן שמעיה לרבי אלעזר דאמר ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים ואמר ליה תנא דידן לא מיבעיא בוולדן דלא מודינא אלא אפילו עד סוף העולם לא מודינא לך

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the tanna already taught: The offspring of the offspring or the substitute and the offspring of their offspring, why do I need him to state: Until the end of all time? The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna heard that Rabbi Elazar said in the next mishna that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering, but rather it is sequestered and left to die, and the tanna of our mishna said to him: It is not necessary to state with regard to their offspring that I do not concede to you, as I maintain that it is sacrificed upon the altar as a peace offering, but even with regard to all of the offsprings until the end of time I do not concede to you, as I rule that they are all sacrificed as peace offerings.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן זכר לרבות את הולד

§ With regard to the mishna’s statement that the halakhic status of the offspring of peace offerings and their substitutes are like that of the peace offering itself, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he offer of the herd, if male if female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). Since the verse already states: “If he offer of the herd,” the words “if male if female” are unnecessary. Rather, the word “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering as having the the same halakhic status as a peace offering.

והלא דין הוא ומה תמורה שאין גידולי הקדש קריבה ולד שגידולי הקדש אינו דין שיקרב

The baraita objects: But could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If a substitute of a peace offering, which is lenient in that it is not grown from consecrated property, i.e., it is not the offspring of a sacrifical animal, is sacrificed as a peace offering, then with regard to the offspring of a peace offering, which is more stringent since it is grown from consecrated property, is it not logical that it be sacrificed as a peace offering?

מה לתמורה שכן נוהגת בכל הקדשים תאמר בולד שאינו נוהג בכל הקדשים אינו קרב הואיל ואינו נוהג בכל הקדשים תלמוד לומר זכר לרבות את הולד נקבה לרבות התמורה

The baraita responds that this a fortiori inference may be refuted: What is unique about the halakhic status of a substitute? It is unique in that the halakha of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals that belong to an individual, and therefore the substitute of a peace offering is offered as a peace offering. Shall you say the same with regard to the offspring, which is more lenient in that it does not apply to all sacrificial animals, as some are male and do not give birth, and therefore there is reason to say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering, since the halakha with regard to the sanctity of the offspring does not apply to all sacrificial animals? Therefore, the verse states the word “male” to include the offspring, and it states the word “female” to include the substitute of a peace offering, indicating that both have the status of a peace offering.

אין לי אלא תמורת תמימין וולד תמימין ולד בעלי מומין ותמורת בעלי מומין מנין תלמוד לומר אם זכר לרבות ולד בעלי מומין אם נקבה לרבות תמורת בעלי מומין

I have derived only that the substitute of an unblemished peace offering and the offspring of an unblemished peace offering have the status of a peace offering. From where do I derive that the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals which are themselves unblemished have the status of peace offerings? The verse states in a more expanded form: “If male,” to include the offspring of blemished animals, and “if female,” to include the substitute of blemished animals.

אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי ואיפוך אנא מסתברא ממקום שנתרבתה תמורת תמימין נתרבתה תמורת בעלי מומין

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rav Safra said to Abaye: But why should I not reverse the interpretations and say that the words “if male” serve to include the substitute of blemished animals, and the words “if female” serve to include the offspring of blemished animals? Abaye responds: It stands to reason that from the same place that the substitute of unblemished animals is included, i.e., from the word “female,” the substitute of blemished animals is also included, i.e., from the expanded form “if female.” Likewise, since the word “male” teaches that the offspring of an unblemished peace offering is included, the offspring of a blemished peace offering is included from the phrase “if male.”

אמר ליה מי קאמינא לך ליפוך אם זכר אם נקבה אנא כוליה קרא קאמינא אימא זכר לרבות את התמורה נקבה לרבות את הולד אמר ליה ולד לשון זכר משמע תמורה לשון נקבה משמע

Rav Safra said to Abaye in explanation of his question: Did I say to you to reverse the interpretations of the phrases “if male” and “if female”? I actually said that the interpretation of the entire verse should be reversed as follows: Say that the word “male” serves to include the substitute of both a blemished and an unblemished offering, and the word “female” serves to include the offspring of both a blemished and an unblemished offering. Abaye said to him in response: It is logical to interpret the verse as the baraita does, as the word offspring [valad] indicates a masculine form, while the word substitute [temura] indicates a feminine form.

למאי הלכתא אמר שמואל ליקרב ואליבא דרבי אלעזר

§ The baraita stated that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? Shmuel said: It is relevant with regard to sacrificing it on the altar as a peace offering, even though its mother is blemished and disqualified for the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who rules that if one sets aside a female animal for a burnt offering, and that animal gave birth to a male, the offspring is offered as a burnt offering, even though its mother may not be offered as a burnt offering (see 18b).

דמהו דתימא כי קאמר רבי אלעזר עולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אבל הני ולדות לא קרבי קמשמע לן

The baraita therefore teaches that the same is true with regard to the offspring of a blemished peace offering. And although Rabbi Elazar already stated this principle, it was necessary for the baraita to repeat it in this case, lest you say that when Rabbi Elazar says his opinion, it is only with regard to a burnt offering, due to the fact that there the discrepancy between mother and offspring is their sex, and there is burnt offering status for females, i.e., the case of a bird that is the same sex as its mother, as one may sacrifice a female bird burnt offering. But perhaps these offspring of a blemished peace offering are not sacrificed, as there is no case of a blemished animal that may be offered as a peace offering. Therefore, it teaches us that even these offspring may be sacrificed.

בר פדא אמר לרעיה ואליבא דדברי הכל דאתמר רבא אמר ליקרב ואליבא דרבי אלעזר רב פפא אמר לרעיה ואליבא דדברי הכל

Bar Padda said: The statement of the baraita that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering is relevant only with regard to grazing the animal until it develops a blemish, after which it may be redeemed and the money used to bring a burnt offering. But the animal itself may not be sacrificed on the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with all opinions. As it was stated that the following amora’im disagreed about the same point as did Shmuel and bar Padda: Rava said that the offspring of a blemished offering is consecrated with regard to sacrificing it upon the altar, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas Rav Pappa said that this halakha applies only with regard to grazing, and this is in accordance with all opinions.

והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא

§ In the baraita, the halakha governing the substitute and offspring of a peace offering is derived from the superfluous words “male” and “female.” The Gemara notes: But this tanna cites the source of this halakha from here: “Only the holy things you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose; and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:26–27).

רק קדשיך אלו תמורות אשר יהיו לך אלו הוולדות תשא ובאת

With regard to the words: “Only your holy things,” these are the substitutes; “that you have,” these are the offspring. And with regard to these, it states: “You shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose,” i.e., they must be brought to the Temple as offerings.

יכול יכניסנו לבית הבחירה וימנע מהם מים ומזון כדי שימותו תלמוד לומר ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם כדרך שאתה נוהג בעולה אתה נוהג בתמורה כדרך שאתה נוהג בשלמים אתה נוהג בוולדי שלמים ובתמורה

One might have thought that one should bring them into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.” This indicates that in the manner that you treat a burnt offering, you should treat the substitute of a burnt offering, and in the manner that you treat a peace offering, you should treat the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering.

יכול כל קדשים כן תלמוד לומר רק דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אשם הוא אשם אשם לה׳ הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קריבה

One might have thought that this is the halakha with regard to all sacrificial animals, i.e., that their substitutes and offspring are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” which, as the Gemara will explain shortly, excludes certain offspring from this principle. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word “only” is unnecessary, as it states with regard to a guilt offering: “It is a guilt offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). The term “It is [hu],” indicates that only it, the guilt offering itself, is sacrificed upon the altar, but its substitute is not sacrificed.

אמר מר תשא ובאת יכול יכניסנו לבית הבחירה

§ The Master said above: Due to the phrase in the verse “You shall take and go,” one might have thought that one should bring the substitute and offspring into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.”

מנא תיתי הא כיון דגמרי חמש חטאות הנך מקרב קרבי

The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that these animals should be brought into the Temple and then left to die? Since the halakha that five sin offering are left to die is learned through a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the offspring of a sin offering and the substitute of a sin offering are included among those five, it would have been reasonable to conclude that only those sin offerings are left to die, but these animals, the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering, are sacrificed upon the altar.

מהו דתימא חמש חטאות מתות בכל מקום והנך ימותו בבית הבחירה קמשמע לן

The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, lest you say that these five sin offerings may be left to die in any location, but these, the offspring and substitute of a peace offering, must be left to die specifically in the Temple. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so, as the offspring and substitute of a peace offering may be offered upon the altar.

אמר מר יכול אף כל הקדשים כן תלמוד לומר רק קדשיך ולד דמאן אי דעולה זכר הוא ולאו בר אולודי הוא ואי דחטאת גמירי לה דלמיתה קיימי

§ The master said above: One might have thought that this is the halakha even with regard to all sacrificial animals that their substitutes and offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar just as the sacrificial animals themselves are. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” indicating that this principle does not apply equally in all cases. The Gemara asks: The offspring of which offering is referred to here? If it is referring to the offspring of a burnt offering, a burnt offering is male, and is therefore not capable of giving birth. And if it is referring to the offspring or substitute of a sin offering, it is learned as a tradition that such an animal is left to die.