Which animals are their substitutions and offspring sacrificed just as the original? And in which are the laws different? From where are all these laws derived?
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Temurah 18
אִי דְּאָשָׁם — גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּלִרְעִיָּיה אָזְלָא, דְּכֹל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. לְעוֹלָם בְּחַטָּאת, וְהִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ לְמִיתָה, וּקְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי לְהַקְרָבָה.
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 Gemara 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.
וְהָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא, כֵּיוָן דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא — מִמֵּילָא לָא קָרְבָה! אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא לְחַטָּאת, וְקָרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם.
The Gemara 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 Gemara 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.
הָא נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. אֶלָּא קְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּאִי עָבַר וּמַקְרֵיב — קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה.
The Gemara asks: But this halakha with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering was also learned by the Sages 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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כּוּ׳. הוּא קָרֵב וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה. לְמָה לִי קְרָא, וְהָא הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ!
§ The baraita stated that in contrast to Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva says that the word “only” is unnecessary to exclude the offspring and substitutes of other sacrificial animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, as the verse that discusses guilt offerings: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:19), teaches that only it, the guilt offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not offered. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to teach this? Didn’t the Sages learn this halakha, that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, as a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, since 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 not sacrificed but rather left to graze?
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם — כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, that the verse is unnecessary for that purpose. Rather, why do I need the verse? It is necessary to teach the halakha that Rav Huna stated, as Rav Huna said: With regard to a guilt offering that was consigned to grazing, i.e., it had been ruled that the animal may not be sacrificed as a guilt offering, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used for voluntary burnt offerings. An example of this is where the owner had already fulfilled his obligation with the sacrifice of a different animal. If the owner nevertheless transgressed and slaughtered it before it developed a blemish as an unspecified offering, it is valid and sacrificed for the sake of a burnt offering.
נִיתַּק — אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? הוּא — בַּהֲוָויָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
The Gemara infers: If the animal was consigned to grazing, yes, it is valid as a burnt offering, but if it was not consigned to grazing, no, it is disqualified as a burnt offering. What is the reason? It is that the verse states with regard to a guilt offering: “It is a guilt offering,” meaning that it shall remain in its present state of a guilt offering.
וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָא יָלֵיף מֵהָנֵי קְרָאֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״זָּכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִוְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וְלִתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
§ The Gemara previously (17b) cited two baraitot that stated that the offspring of a peace offering has the status of a peace offering. According to one, this is derived from the phrase in the verse in Leviticus “if male if female,” while according to the other it is derived from the phrase in the verse in Deuteronomy “You shall take and go.” The Gemara objects: And according to this tanna of the second baraita, who derives this halakha from these verses: “You shall take and go,” and: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” let him derive it from the words “male” and “female.” The Gemara explains: He requires that verse to teach the halakha of the offspring of a blemished animal and to teach the halakha of the substitute of a blemished animal.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי כּוּלְּהוּ מֵהַאי קְרָא? ״אִם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And let him derive all of the halakhot, that of the offspring and the substitute of an unblemished peace offering as well as that of the offspring and the substitute of a blemished offering, from this verse: “If male if female,” in the same manner that the tanna of the first baraita derived them from that verse. The Gemara answers: He does not learn anything from the word “if,” which is a common term and is not considered superfluous.
וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זָּכָר״ ״אִם נְקֵבָה״, תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ מָה עָבֵיד לְהוּ! אֲפִילּוּ מִמִּירְעַיְיהוּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא: מִמּוֹרִגַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to this tanna of the first baraita, who derives all of the halakhot from the words “if male if female,” what does he do with the phrase in the verse “You shall take and go”? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one must bring his offerings to the Temple when he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival even if he must take them from their place of grazing, and he should not delay bringing them until the following Festival. Another version of this answer is that the verse is necessary to teach that one must bring the animals he intends to consecrate even if he must take them from their place of threshing, i.e., even if they are currently being used to thresh, rather than delay bringing the animals to Jerusalem until a later stage.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.
MISHNA: Although the previous mishna stated plainly that the offspring of a peace offering is itself sacrificed as a peace offering, its status is actually subject to a dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering; rather it is sequestered and left to die. And the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed as a peace offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל וְלַד וְלַד שְׁלָמִים, וְעַל וְלַד וְלַד תְּמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַב. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל הַוָּלָד, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.
Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering or with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree that the animal is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering. With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree about the case of the offspring of a peace offering itself. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not sacrificed as a peace offering, whereas the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס עַל וְלַד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.
Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas said: I testify that we ourselves had a cow that was a peace offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its offspring as a peace offering on a different Festival.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֲמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים קׇרְבָּנוֹ לַה׳״, וְאֵם — וְלֹא וָלָד.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that the offspring of a peace offering does not have the status of a peace offering? It is that the verse states with regard to a peace offering: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings for the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). The term “and if [ve’im],” can be read as: And a mother [ve’em], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, but not the offspring.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵם וְלֹא וָלָד? וְכִי תֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: וְלָדָהּ, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְחִילּוּפֶיהָ — מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, then with regard to the verse: “If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:12), so too one should interpret it to mean that one may sacrifice the mother [em] but not the offspring as a thanks offering. And if you would say that Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the offspring of a thanks offering is not sacrificed as a thanks offering, isn’t it taught in a baraita the following halakha with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering and its substitute and its replacement, if the original animal was lost and then found again, rendering both animals suitable for an offering: From where is it derived that all these are sacrificed as thanks offerings? The verse states: “If for a thanksgiving,” which indicates that they may be offered as a thanks offering in any case.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶם עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.
Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering: It is a rabbinic decree that it may not be sacrificed, lest the owner delay sacrificing the peace offerings that he is obligated to bring so that he may raise entire herds from them in order to sell the animals to people who need peace offerings.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disgree with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering, or with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree that the animal is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering. With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree only about the offspring of a peace offering itself.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי תָּנֵי? ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: How precisely is the mishna taught? Is it saying that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed or they are not sacrificed, but rather they all agree, even Rabbi Eliezer, that they are sacrificed? Or perhaps it is saying that they do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed or they are not sacrificed, but rather they all agree, even the Sages, that they are not sacrificed.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
Rabba said: It stands to reason that the mishna is saying that they do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are not sacrificed, but rather all agree that they are sacrificed. What is the reason? It is that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to the offspring, but with regard to the offspring of the offspring, Rabbi Eliezer does not render it prohibited to sacrifice them, as it is merely a chance, i.e., an uncommon occurrence, that one delays sacrificing an offering to the point that the offspring of its offspring have already been born.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — מִתּוֹךְ (מַעֲשֶׂיהָ) [מַעֲשָׂיו] נִיכֶּרֶת מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ דִּלְגַדֵּל קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the correct reading of the mishna is: They do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed, but rather all agree that they are not sacrificed. What is the reason? It is that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the offspring, but with regard to the offspring of the offspring, from the result of his actions with regard to it, i.e., that he delayed sacrificing the original offering for such a long period of time, his intention is evident that he wants to raise herds from it. Therefore, the halakha is that the offspring of the offspring may not be sacrificed, in order to deter him from the outset from raising herds.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב הוּא מַקְרִיב״ — וָלָד רִאשׁוֹן קָרֵב, וָלָד שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ קָרֵב.
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita to support the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that all agree that the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed: The verse states: “If he sacrifices a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:7). Two limitations are derived from this verse: The word “lamb” indicates that the first offspring, i.e., the offspring of the peace offering, is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed.
הוּא — קָרֵב, וְאֵין וְלַד כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים קָרֵב.
In addition, the word “he [hu]” is interpreted as referring to the offspring of the peace offering rather than the owner, as it is obvious from the context that the owner is sacrificing the animal and the word would be unnecessary if written only for that purpose. Therefore, it teaches that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the offspring of all other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed. This indicates that even those Sages who rule that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed agree that the offspring of the offspring is not sacrificed.
וָלָד דְּמַאי? אִי דְּעוֹלָה וְאָשָׁם — זְכָרִים הֵם, וְלָא בְּנֵי וָלָד הֵם. אִי דְּחַטָּאת — הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.
The Gemara clarifies the second limitation, that the offspring of other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed: The offspring of which type of offering is referred to here? If it is referring to that of a burnt offering or guilt offering, they are male and therefore not capable of giving birth to offspring. If it is referring to the offspring of a sin offering, the verse is unnecessary, as the Sages learned this halakha as a tradition that it is left to die and may not be offered.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְאֵיתוֹיֵי וְלַד הַמְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְלַד הַמְעוּשֶּׂרֶת לְמָה לִי קְרָא? ״עֲבָרָה״ ״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר קָא גָמַר לַהּ!
Ravina said: The verse serves to include, in the limitation that the offspring of other sacrificial animals are not sacrificed, the offspring of an animal that was consecrated as animal tithe and then gave birth. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include the offspring of the animal tithe? It is derived through a verbal analogy between the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to animal tithe, and the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to a firstborn animal, which is male and cannot give birth to offspring. With regard to animal tithe the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes [ya’avor] under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to a firstborn, the verse states: “And you shall set apart [veha’avarta] for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn that is a male, which you have that comes of an animal, shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12).
אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא: אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: This verse is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that one does not derive the possible from the impossible, as in this case, where one seeks to derive by way of analogy the halakha of the offspring of animal tithe from that of a firstborn, which is a male and therefore cannot give birth. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the offspring of animal tithe is not sacrificed on the altar as an offering.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas added the testimony that he had a cow that was eaten as a peace offering on Passover, and its offspring was eaten as a peace offering on a different Festival [beḥag].
וּלְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶם רֶגֶל אֶחָד, כָּל יוֹם וָיוֹם עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, מֵעֲצֶרֶת בָּעֵי מֵיכְלֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה בַּעֲצֶרֶת.
Since the term ḥag generally refers to Sukkot, the Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said with regard to sacrificial animals that once one pilgrimage Festival has passed from when they were consecrated, and the owner has not yet brought them to the Temple, each day he transgresses with regard to them the prohibition of: You shall not delay, which is derived from the verse that states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it” (Deuteronomy 23:22), already from Shavuot he must eat the offspring of the peace offering that was sacrificed on Passover. Why then did they wait until Sukkot? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: It is referring to a case where the owner was unable to sacrifice the offspring of the peace offering on Shavuot due to circumstances beyond his control, for example, if the animal was ill on Shavuot [ba’Atzeret].
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַאי ״חַג״ נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי? — חַג שָׁבוּעוֹת. וְאִידַּךְ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּקָתָנֵי ״פֶּסַח״ תָּנֵי ״עֲצֶרֶת״.
Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the meaning of the word ḥag that is taught in the mishna in the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? It is referring to the festival of Shavuot, not Sukkot. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rav Zevid, why didn’t he explain the mishna in this manner? The Gemara answers: Wherever the tanna teaches the word Pesaḥ in a mishna, and he wishes also to teach something about Shavuot, he uses the term atzeret rather than the word ḥag.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אַסְהָדוּתֵיהּ? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר ״וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים״, קָמַסְהֵיד הוּא דְּקָרֵב.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the offspring of the peace offering was not sacrificed on Shavuot due to illness, as suggested by Rava, or that it was indeed sacrificed on Shavuot, as proposed by Rav Ashi, what is the purpose of the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? He certainly cannot be excluding the opinion shared by Rava, as might have been indicated by a straightforward reading of the mishna. The Gemara answers: His testimony serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas therefore testifies that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, and that this was the actual practice in the Temple.
מַתְנִי׳ וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְלָדָן וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּתוֹדָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
MISHNA: The offspring of a thanks offering and the substitute of a thanks offering, and the offspring of the offspring and its substitute, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they are all like thanks offerings, with the only difference being that they do not require the accompanying loaves, unlike the thanks offering itself.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the offspring and substitute of a thanks offering do not require the accompanying loaves? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). What does the term “offer it [yakrivenu]” serve to say?
מַפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה, וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב וְלַחְמָהּ עִמָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״.
The baraita explains: The term is referring to one who designates a thanks offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place, and then the first animal was found, and now both of them stand before him available for sacrifice. From where is it derived that he may sacrifice whichever one he wants and bring its accompanying loaves with it? The verse states: “He offers a thanks offering,” indicating that he may offer either one.
יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁנִיָּה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״ — אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת וְלָדוֹת תְּמוּרוֹת וַחֲלִיפוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִם עַל תּוֹדָה״. יָכוֹל יְהוּ כּוּלָּן טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה״ — תּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, וְלֹא וְלָדָהּ וּתְמוּרָתָהּ וַחֲלִיפָתָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
One might have thought that even the second should require the accompanying loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “Offer it,” to teach that only one of them is brought with the loaves, and not two. From where is it derived that the offspring, substitutes, and replacement offerings, in the case where the animal was lost, another was separated in its place, and then the original animal was found, are included and may be sacrificed as well? The verse states: “And if…as a thanksgiving,” teaching that they may all be sacrificed as thanks offerings. One might have thought that all of them require loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “With the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” which indicates that only the thanks offering itself requires loaves, but its offspring and its substitute and its replacement do not require loaves.
מַתְנִי׳ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, וְלַד תְּמוּרָה, וְלַד וְלַד וְלָדָהּ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּעוֹלָה, וּטְעוּנִין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ וְכָלִיל לָאִשִּׁים. הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה וְיָלְדָה זָכָר — יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עוֹלָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב עוֹלָה.
MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a burnt offering, the offspring of the substitute, e.g., if one substituted a female animal for a burnt offering, and it gave birth to a male, and the offspring of the offspring of its offspring until the end of all time, they are all like burnt offerings and therefore they require flaying and cutting into pieces and must be burned completely in the fire. In the case of one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, which may be brought only from males, and that female gave birth to a male, although it is a male, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit [sheyista’ev] and then it is sold, and he brings a burnt offering with the money received for its sale. Rabbi Elazar says: The male offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא דִּפְלִיגִי?
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna states that the offspring of a female substitute for a burnt offering is brought as a burnt offering, whereas in the latter clause the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the status of a female animal that was consecrated as a burnt offering. The Gemara therefore asks: What is different in the first clause that they do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause that they disagree?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי מַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִימֵּיהּ לָא קְרֵיבָה, אֲבָל תְּמוּרָה דְּאִימֵּיהּ נָמֵי קְרֵיבָה — אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even the first clause is taught as a matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar, and the ruling there is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. And Rava said: You may even say that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, but they disagree with Rabbi Elazar only with regard to one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering, as they maintain that the offspring may not be sacrificed because its mother may not be sacrificed. But with regard to the offspring of a substitute, since its mother, i.e., the original burnt offering that is the source of the mother’s sanctity as a substitute, may also be sacrificed, even the Rabbis concede that the offspring may be sacrificed.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר יִקְרַב עוֹלָה הוּא עַצְמוֹ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם, וְלַד תְּמוּרָה, וְלָדָן, וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering? But one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (20b): The substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, and their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, all graze until they become unfit, and then each animal is sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּתוּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלָה. בַּדָּמִים — אִין, הוּא עַצְמוֹ — לָא.
Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze until they become unfit and then each animal is sold; rather they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: Communal gift offerings are not purchased with the money from the sale; rather, the owner should bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Elazar’s statement that with the money received for its sale, yes, one brings an individual burnt offering, but the offspring of the substitute itself, no, one may not bring it as a burnt offering.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ, לְדִידִי סְבִירָא לִי דַּאֲפִילּוּ וָלָד נָמֵי קָרֵב עוֹלָה, לְדִידְכוּ דְּאָמְרִיתוּ רוֹעֶה — אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת דְּמוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת יָחִיד אָזְלִי, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִיבּוּר אָזְלִי.
Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Elazar was speaking to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, as follows: According to me, I hold that even the offspring itself is also sacrificed as a burnt offering. But according to you, who say that the animal is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold and the money used for the purchase of burnt offerings, concede to me at least that the remainder of the money goes for the purchase of individual gift offerings, rather than communal offerings. And the Rabbis said to him in response that the remainder of the money goes for communal gift offerings.
רָבָא אָמַר: עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב עוֹלָה, אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ,
Rava said another explanation: Rabbi Elazar says that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only in a case where he designated a female animal as a burnt offering and it gave birth, since there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 55: All Sacrifices Are Holy, But Not to the Same Degree
11.08.2025 | י״ז בחשון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
Temurah 18
אִי דְּאָשָׁם — גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּלִרְעִיָּיה אָזְלָא, דְּכֹל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. לְעוֹלָם בְּחַטָּאת, וְהִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ לְמִיתָה, וּקְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי לְהַקְרָבָה.
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 Gemara 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.
וְהָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא, כֵּיוָן דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא — מִמֵּילָא לָא קָרְבָה! אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא לְחַטָּאת, וְקָרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם.
The Gemara 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 Gemara 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.
הָא נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. אֶלָּא קְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּאִי עָבַר וּמַקְרֵיב — קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה.
The Gemara asks: But this halakha with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering was also learned by the Sages 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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כּוּ׳. הוּא קָרֵב וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה. לְמָה לִי קְרָא, וְהָא הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ!
§ The baraita stated that in contrast to Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva says that the word “only” is unnecessary to exclude the offspring and substitutes of other sacrificial animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, as the verse that discusses guilt offerings: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:19), teaches that only it, the guilt offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not offered. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to teach this? Didn’t the Sages learn this halakha, that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, as a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, since 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 not sacrificed but rather left to graze?
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם — כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, that the verse is unnecessary for that purpose. Rather, why do I need the verse? It is necessary to teach the halakha that Rav Huna stated, as Rav Huna said: With regard to a guilt offering that was consigned to grazing, i.e., it had been ruled that the animal may not be sacrificed as a guilt offering, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used for voluntary burnt offerings. An example of this is where the owner had already fulfilled his obligation with the sacrifice of a different animal. If the owner nevertheless transgressed and slaughtered it before it developed a blemish as an unspecified offering, it is valid and sacrificed for the sake of a burnt offering.
נִיתַּק — אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? הוּא — בַּהֲוָויָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
The Gemara infers: If the animal was consigned to grazing, yes, it is valid as a burnt offering, but if it was not consigned to grazing, no, it is disqualified as a burnt offering. What is the reason? It is that the verse states with regard to a guilt offering: “It is a guilt offering,” meaning that it shall remain in its present state of a guilt offering.
וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָא יָלֵיף מֵהָנֵי קְרָאֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״זָּכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִוְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וְלִתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
§ The Gemara previously (17b) cited two baraitot that stated that the offspring of a peace offering has the status of a peace offering. According to one, this is derived from the phrase in the verse in Leviticus “if male if female,” while according to the other it is derived from the phrase in the verse in Deuteronomy “You shall take and go.” The Gemara objects: And according to this tanna of the second baraita, who derives this halakha from these verses: “You shall take and go,” and: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” let him derive it from the words “male” and “female.” The Gemara explains: He requires that verse to teach the halakha of the offspring of a blemished animal and to teach the halakha of the substitute of a blemished animal.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי כּוּלְּהוּ מֵהַאי קְרָא? ״אִם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And let him derive all of the halakhot, that of the offspring and the substitute of an unblemished peace offering as well as that of the offspring and the substitute of a blemished offering, from this verse: “If male if female,” in the same manner that the tanna of the first baraita derived them from that verse. The Gemara answers: He does not learn anything from the word “if,” which is a common term and is not considered superfluous.
וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זָּכָר״ ״אִם נְקֵבָה״, תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ מָה עָבֵיד לְהוּ! אֲפִילּוּ מִמִּירְעַיְיהוּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא: מִמּוֹרִגַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to this tanna of the first baraita, who derives all of the halakhot from the words “if male if female,” what does he do with the phrase in the verse “You shall take and go”? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one must bring his offerings to the Temple when he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival even if he must take them from their place of grazing, and he should not delay bringing them until the following Festival. Another version of this answer is that the verse is necessary to teach that one must bring the animals he intends to consecrate even if he must take them from their place of threshing, i.e., even if they are currently being used to thresh, rather than delay bringing the animals to Jerusalem until a later stage.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.
MISHNA: Although the previous mishna stated plainly that the offspring of a peace offering is itself sacrificed as a peace offering, its status is actually subject to a dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering; rather it is sequestered and left to die. And the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed as a peace offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל וְלַד וְלַד שְׁלָמִים, וְעַל וְלַד וְלַד תְּמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַב. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל הַוָּלָד, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.
Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering or with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree that the animal is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering. With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree about the case of the offspring of a peace offering itself. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not sacrificed as a peace offering, whereas the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס עַל וְלַד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.
Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas said: I testify that we ourselves had a cow that was a peace offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its offspring as a peace offering on a different Festival.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֲמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים קׇרְבָּנוֹ לַה׳״, וְאֵם — וְלֹא וָלָד.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that the offspring of a peace offering does not have the status of a peace offering? It is that the verse states with regard to a peace offering: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings for the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). The term “and if [ve’im],” can be read as: And a mother [ve’em], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, but not the offspring.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵם וְלֹא וָלָד? וְכִי תֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: וְלָדָהּ, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְחִילּוּפֶיהָ — מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, then with regard to the verse: “If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:12), so too one should interpret it to mean that one may sacrifice the mother [em] but not the offspring as a thanks offering. And if you would say that Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the offspring of a thanks offering is not sacrificed as a thanks offering, isn’t it taught in a baraita the following halakha with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering and its substitute and its replacement, if the original animal was lost and then found again, rendering both animals suitable for an offering: From where is it derived that all these are sacrificed as thanks offerings? The verse states: “If for a thanksgiving,” which indicates that they may be offered as a thanks offering in any case.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶם עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.
Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering: It is a rabbinic decree that it may not be sacrificed, lest the owner delay sacrificing the peace offerings that he is obligated to bring so that he may raise entire herds from them in order to sell the animals to people who need peace offerings.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disgree with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering, or with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree that the animal is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering. With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree only about the offspring of a peace offering itself.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי תָּנֵי? ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: How precisely is the mishna taught? Is it saying that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed or they are not sacrificed, but rather they all agree, even Rabbi Eliezer, that they are sacrificed? Or perhaps it is saying that they do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed or they are not sacrificed, but rather they all agree, even the Sages, that they are not sacrificed.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
Rabba said: It stands to reason that the mishna is saying that they do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are not sacrificed, but rather all agree that they are sacrificed. What is the reason? It is that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to the offspring, but with regard to the offspring of the offspring, Rabbi Eliezer does not render it prohibited to sacrifice them, as it is merely a chance, i.e., an uncommon occurrence, that one delays sacrificing an offering to the point that the offspring of its offspring have already been born.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — מִתּוֹךְ (מַעֲשֶׂיהָ) [מַעֲשָׂיו] נִיכֶּרֶת מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ דִּלְגַדֵּל קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the correct reading of the mishna is: They do not disagree whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed, but rather all agree that they are not sacrificed. What is the reason? It is that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the offspring, but with regard to the offspring of the offspring, from the result of his actions with regard to it, i.e., that he delayed sacrificing the original offering for such a long period of time, his intention is evident that he wants to raise herds from it. Therefore, the halakha is that the offspring of the offspring may not be sacrificed, in order to deter him from the outset from raising herds.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב הוּא מַקְרִיב״ — וָלָד רִאשׁוֹן קָרֵב, וָלָד שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ קָרֵב.
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita to support the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that all agree that the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed: The verse states: “If he sacrifices a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:7). Two limitations are derived from this verse: The word “lamb” indicates that the first offspring, i.e., the offspring of the peace offering, is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed.
הוּא — קָרֵב, וְאֵין וְלַד כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים קָרֵב.
In addition, the word “he [hu]” is interpreted as referring to the offspring of the peace offering rather than the owner, as it is obvious from the context that the owner is sacrificing the animal and the word would be unnecessary if written only for that purpose. Therefore, it teaches that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the offspring of all other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed. This indicates that even those Sages who rule that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed agree that the offspring of the offspring is not sacrificed.
וָלָד דְּמַאי? אִי דְּעוֹלָה וְאָשָׁם — זְכָרִים הֵם, וְלָא בְּנֵי וָלָד הֵם. אִי דְּחַטָּאת — הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.
The Gemara clarifies the second limitation, that the offspring of other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed: The offspring of which type of offering is referred to here? If it is referring to that of a burnt offering or guilt offering, they are male and therefore not capable of giving birth to offspring. If it is referring to the offspring of a sin offering, the verse is unnecessary, as the Sages learned this halakha as a tradition that it is left to die and may not be offered.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְאֵיתוֹיֵי וְלַד הַמְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְלַד הַמְעוּשֶּׂרֶת לְמָה לִי קְרָא? ״עֲבָרָה״ ״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר קָא גָמַר לַהּ!
Ravina said: The verse serves to include, in the limitation that the offspring of other sacrificial animals are not sacrificed, the offspring of an animal that was consecrated as animal tithe and then gave birth. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include the offspring of the animal tithe? It is derived through a verbal analogy between the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to animal tithe, and the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to a firstborn animal, which is male and cannot give birth to offspring. With regard to animal tithe the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes [ya’avor] under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to a firstborn, the verse states: “And you shall set apart [veha’avarta] for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn that is a male, which you have that comes of an animal, shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12).
אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא: אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: This verse is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that one does not derive the possible from the impossible, as in this case, where one seeks to derive by way of analogy the halakha of the offspring of animal tithe from that of a firstborn, which is a male and therefore cannot give birth. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the offspring of animal tithe is not sacrificed on the altar as an offering.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas added the testimony that he had a cow that was eaten as a peace offering on Passover, and its offspring was eaten as a peace offering on a different Festival [beḥag].
וּלְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶם רֶגֶל אֶחָד, כָּל יוֹם וָיוֹם עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, מֵעֲצֶרֶת בָּעֵי מֵיכְלֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה בַּעֲצֶרֶת.
Since the term ḥag generally refers to Sukkot, the Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said with regard to sacrificial animals that once one pilgrimage Festival has passed from when they were consecrated, and the owner has not yet brought them to the Temple, each day he transgresses with regard to them the prohibition of: You shall not delay, which is derived from the verse that states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it” (Deuteronomy 23:22), already from Shavuot he must eat the offspring of the peace offering that was sacrificed on Passover. Why then did they wait until Sukkot? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: It is referring to a case where the owner was unable to sacrifice the offspring of the peace offering on Shavuot due to circumstances beyond his control, for example, if the animal was ill on Shavuot [ba’Atzeret].
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַאי ״חַג״ נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי? — חַג שָׁבוּעוֹת. וְאִידַּךְ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּקָתָנֵי ״פֶּסַח״ תָּנֵי ״עֲצֶרֶת״.
Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the meaning of the word ḥag that is taught in the mishna in the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? It is referring to the festival of Shavuot, not Sukkot. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rav Zevid, why didn’t he explain the mishna in this manner? The Gemara answers: Wherever the tanna teaches the word Pesaḥ in a mishna, and he wishes also to teach something about Shavuot, he uses the term atzeret rather than the word ḥag.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אַסְהָדוּתֵיהּ? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר ״וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים״, קָמַסְהֵיד הוּא דְּקָרֵב.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the offspring of the peace offering was not sacrificed on Shavuot due to illness, as suggested by Rava, or that it was indeed sacrificed on Shavuot, as proposed by Rav Ashi, what is the purpose of the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? He certainly cannot be excluding the opinion shared by Rava, as might have been indicated by a straightforward reading of the mishna. The Gemara answers: His testimony serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas therefore testifies that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, and that this was the actual practice in the Temple.
מַתְנִי׳ וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְלָדָן וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּתוֹדָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
MISHNA: The offspring of a thanks offering and the substitute of a thanks offering, and the offspring of the offspring and its substitute, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they are all like thanks offerings, with the only difference being that they do not require the accompanying loaves, unlike the thanks offering itself.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the offspring and substitute of a thanks offering do not require the accompanying loaves? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). What does the term “offer it [yakrivenu]” serve to say?
מַפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה, וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב וְלַחְמָהּ עִמָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״.
The baraita explains: The term is referring to one who designates a thanks offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place, and then the first animal was found, and now both of them stand before him available for sacrifice. From where is it derived that he may sacrifice whichever one he wants and bring its accompanying loaves with it? The verse states: “He offers a thanks offering,” indicating that he may offer either one.
יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁנִיָּה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״ — אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת וְלָדוֹת תְּמוּרוֹת וַחֲלִיפוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִם עַל תּוֹדָה״. יָכוֹל יְהוּ כּוּלָּן טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה״ — תּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, וְלֹא וְלָדָהּ וּתְמוּרָתָהּ וַחֲלִיפָתָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
One might have thought that even the second should require the accompanying loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “Offer it,” to teach that only one of them is brought with the loaves, and not two. From where is it derived that the offspring, substitutes, and replacement offerings, in the case where the animal was lost, another was separated in its place, and then the original animal was found, are included and may be sacrificed as well? The verse states: “And if…as a thanksgiving,” teaching that they may all be sacrificed as thanks offerings. One might have thought that all of them require loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “With the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” which indicates that only the thanks offering itself requires loaves, but its offspring and its substitute and its replacement do not require loaves.
מַתְנִי׳ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, וְלַד תְּמוּרָה, וְלַד וְלַד וְלָדָהּ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּעוֹלָה, וּטְעוּנִין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ וְכָלִיל לָאִשִּׁים. הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה וְיָלְדָה זָכָר — יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עוֹלָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב עוֹלָה.
MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a burnt offering, the offspring of the substitute, e.g., if one substituted a female animal for a burnt offering, and it gave birth to a male, and the offspring of the offspring of its offspring until the end of all time, they are all like burnt offerings and therefore they require flaying and cutting into pieces and must be burned completely in the fire. In the case of one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, which may be brought only from males, and that female gave birth to a male, although it is a male, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit [sheyista’ev] and then it is sold, and he brings a burnt offering with the money received for its sale. Rabbi Elazar says: The male offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא דִּפְלִיגִי?
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna states that the offspring of a female substitute for a burnt offering is brought as a burnt offering, whereas in the latter clause the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the status of a female animal that was consecrated as a burnt offering. The Gemara therefore asks: What is different in the first clause that they do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause that they disagree?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי מַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִימֵּיהּ לָא קְרֵיבָה, אֲבָל תְּמוּרָה דְּאִימֵּיהּ נָמֵי קְרֵיבָה — אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even the first clause is taught as a matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar, and the ruling there is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. And Rava said: You may even say that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, but they disagree with Rabbi Elazar only with regard to one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering, as they maintain that the offspring may not be sacrificed because its mother may not be sacrificed. But with regard to the offspring of a substitute, since its mother, i.e., the original burnt offering that is the source of the mother’s sanctity as a substitute, may also be sacrificed, even the Rabbis concede that the offspring may be sacrificed.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר יִקְרַב עוֹלָה הוּא עַצְמוֹ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם, וְלַד תְּמוּרָה, וְלָדָן, וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering? But one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (20b): The substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, and their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, all graze until they become unfit, and then each animal is sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּתוּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלָה. בַּדָּמִים — אִין, הוּא עַצְמוֹ — לָא.
Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze until they become unfit and then each animal is sold; rather they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: Communal gift offerings are not purchased with the money from the sale; rather, the owner should bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Elazar’s statement that with the money received for its sale, yes, one brings an individual burnt offering, but the offspring of the substitute itself, no, one may not bring it as a burnt offering.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ, לְדִידִי סְבִירָא לִי דַּאֲפִילּוּ וָלָד נָמֵי קָרֵב עוֹלָה, לְדִידְכוּ דְּאָמְרִיתוּ רוֹעֶה — אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת דְּמוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת יָחִיד אָזְלִי, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִיבּוּר אָזְלִי.
Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Elazar was speaking to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, as follows: According to me, I hold that even the offspring itself is also sacrificed as a burnt offering. But according to you, who say that the animal is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold and the money used for the purchase of burnt offerings, concede to me at least that the remainder of the money goes for the purchase of individual gift offerings, rather than communal offerings. And the Rabbis said to him in response that the remainder of the money goes for communal gift offerings.
רָבָא אָמַר: עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב עוֹלָה, אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ,
Rava said another explanation: Rabbi Elazar says that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only in a case where he designated a female animal as a burnt offering and it gave birth, since there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother.
Follow
