Temurah 18

אי דאשם גמירי לה דלרעייה אזלא דכל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה לעולה לעולם בחטאת והילכתא גמירי לה למיתה וקרא למעוטי להקרבה

And if it is referring to the substitute of a guilt offering, it is learned as a tradition that this offering goes out to graze, as in any case where a sin offering is left to die, in the parallel case involving a guilt offering, the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish, after which it is redeemed and the money is used to purchase a burnt offering. Therefore, there is no need for a verse to exclude the substitute of a guilt offering. The 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.

והא בהא תליא כיון דלמיתה אזלא ממילא לא קרבה אלא הלכתא לחטאת וקרא למעוטי תמורת אשם

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.

הא נמי הילכתא גמירי לה דאמרי כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה אלא קרא מיבעי ליה דאי עבר ומקריב קאי בעשה

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך כו׳ הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קריבה למה לי קרא והא הילכתא גמירי לה

§ 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?

אין הכי נמי אלא קרא למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו סתם כשר לשם עולה

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.

ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מאי טעמא הוא בהווייתו יהא

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.

ולהאי תנא דקא יליף מהני קראי תיפוק לי מזכר ונקבה ההוא מיבעי ליה לולד בעלי מומין ולתמורת בעלי מומין

§ 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.

ותיפוק לי כולהו מהאי קרא אם לא משמע ליה

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.

ולהאי תנא דנפקא ליה מזכר אם נקבה תשא ובאת מה עביד להו אפילו ממירעייהו לישנא אחרינא ממורגייהו

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.

מתני׳ רבי אליעזר אומר ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים וחכמים אומרים יקרב

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.

אמר רבי שמעון לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים ועל ולד ולד תמורה שלא יקרב על מה נחלקו על הולד רבי אליעזר אומר לא יקרב וחכמים אומרים יקרב

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.

העיד רבי יהושע ורבי פפייס על ולד שלמים שיקרב שלמים אמר רבי פפייס אני מעיד שהיתה לנו פרה של זבחי שלמים ואכלנוה בפסח ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג

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.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר אמר קרא ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו לה׳ ואם ולא ולד

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.

אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי אמי אלא מעתה אם על תודה יקריבנו הכי נמי דאם ולא ולד וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא ולדה ותמורתה וחילופיה מנין תלמוד לומר אם על תודה מכל מקום

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.

אלא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר גזירה שמא יגדל מהם עדרים עדרים

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.

אמר רבי שמעון לא נחלקו כו׳

§ 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.

איבעיא להו היכי תני לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו או דילמא לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו

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.

אמר רבה מסתברא לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו מאי טעמא עד כאן לא פליג רבי אליעזר עליה דרבנן אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד אקראי בעלמא הוא

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.

ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמר לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו מאי טעמא עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד מתוך מעשיה ניכרת מחשבתו דלגדל קא בעי ליה

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.

תני רבי חייא לסיועי לרבי יהושע בן לוי אם כשב הוא מקריב ולד ראשון קרב ולד שני אינו קרב

§ 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.

הוא קרב ואין ולד כל הקדשים קרב

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.

ולד דמאי אי דעולה ואשם זכרים הם ולא בני ולד הם אי דחטאת הילכתא גמירי לה דלמיתה אזלא

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.

אמר רבינא לאיתויי ולד המעושרת ולד המעושרת למה לי קרא עברה עברה מבכור קא גמר לה

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).

אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר קא משמע לן

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.

העיד רבי שמעון ורבי פפייס כו׳

§ 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].

ולרבא דאמר קדשים כיון שעבר עליהם רגל אחד כל יום ויום עובר עליהם בבל תאחר מעצרת בעי מיכליה אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא כגון שהיה חולה בעצרת

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].

רב אשי אמר מאי חג נמי דקתני חג שבועות ואידך כל היכי דקתני פסח תני עצרת

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.

אי הכי מאי אסהדותיה לאפוקי מדרבי אליעזר דאמר ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים קמסהיד הוא דקרב

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.

מתני׳ ולד תודה ותמורתה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל הדורות הרי אלו כתודה ובלבד שאין טעונין לחם

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן מהו אומר יקריבנו

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?

מפריש תודה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזו שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה תלמוד לומר תודה יקריב

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.

יכול תהא שניה טעונה לחם תלמוד לומר יקריבנו אחת ולא שתים מנין לרבות ולדות תמורות וחליפות תלמוד לומר ואם על תודה יכול יהו כולן טעונות לחם תלמוד לומר על זבח התודה תודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ותמורתה וחליפתה טעונה לחם

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.

מתני׳ תמורת עולה ולד תמורה ולד ולד ולדה עד סוף כל העולם הרי אלו כעולה וטעונין הפשט וניתוח וכליל לאשים המפריש נקבה לעולה וילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו עולה רבי אלעזר אומר הוא עצמו יקרב עולה

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.

גמ׳ מאי שנא רישא דלא פליגי ומאי שנא סיפא דפליגי

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?

אמר רבה בר בר חנה במחלוקת שנויה ורבי אלעזר היא ורבא אמר אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי עליה דרבי אלעזר אלא גבי מפריש נקבה לעולה דאימיה לא קריבה אבל תמורה דאימיה נמי קריבה אפילו רבנן מודו

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.

ומי אמר רבי אלעזר יקרב עולה הוא עצמו ורמינהו תמורת אשם ולד תמורה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה

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.

רבי אליעזר אומר ימותו רבי אלעזר אומר יביא בדמיהן עולה בדמים אין הוא עצמו לא

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.

אמר רב חסדא רבי אלעזר לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי סבירא לי דאפילו ולד נמי קרבה עולה לדידכו דאמריתו רועה אודו לי מיהת דמותרות לנדבת יחיד אזלי ואמרי ליה מותרות לנדבת ציבור אזלי

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.

רבא אמר עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אלעזר הוא עצמו יקרב עולה אלא במפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו

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.