Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 6, 2019 | 讛壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Temurah 18

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬 讚讗砖诐 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇专注讬讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛 诇注讜诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讟讗转 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诇诪讬转讛 讜拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讛拽专讘讛

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.

讜讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 拽专讘讛 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇讞讟讗转 讜拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐

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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 注讘专 讜诪拽专讬讘 拽讗讬 讘注砖讛

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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻讜壮 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讜讛讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

搂 The baraita stated that in contrast to Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva says that the word 鈥渙nly鈥 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: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering鈥 (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鈥檛 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?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛

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.

谞讬转拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 谞讬转拽 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

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: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering,鈥 meaning that it shall remain in its present state of a guilt offering.

讜诇讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诇讚 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜诇转诪讜专转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉

搂 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 鈥渋f male if female,鈥 while according to the other it is derived from the phrase in the verse in Deuteronomy 鈥淵ou shall take and go.鈥 The Gemara objects: And according to this tanna of the second baraita, who derives this halakha from these verses: 鈥淵ou shall take and go,鈥 and: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 let him derive it from the words 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale.鈥 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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淚f male if female,鈥 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 鈥渋f,鈥 which is a common term and is not considered superfluous.

讜诇讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转砖讗 讜讘讗转 诪讛 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬专注讬讬讛讜 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪诪讜专讙讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to this tanna of the first baraita, who derives all of the halakhot from the words 鈥渋f male if female,鈥 what does he do with the phrase in the verse 鈥淵ou shall take and go鈥? 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽专讘

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鈥檌m. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 讜注诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛讜诇讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽专讘

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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 注诇 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 讗谞讬 诪注讬讚 砖讛讬转讛 诇谞讜 驻专讛 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇谞讜讛 讘驻住讞 讜讗讻诇谞讜 讜诇讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讞讙

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘谞讜 诇讛壮 讜讗诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:1). The term 鈥渁nd if [ve鈥檌m],鈥 can be read as: And a mother [ve鈥檈m], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, but not the offspring.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, then with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving鈥 (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鈥檛 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: 鈥淚f for a thanksgiving,鈥 which indicates that they may be offered as a thanks offering in any case.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛诐 注讚专讬诐 注讚专讬诐

Rather, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 转谞讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讛 谞讬讻专转 诪讞砖讘转讜 讚诇讙讚诇 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诐 讻砖讘 讛讜讗 诪拽专讬讘 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜谉 拽专讘 讜诇讚 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘

Rabbi 岣yya 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: 鈥淚f he sacrifices a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:7). Two limitations are derived from this verse: The word 鈥渓amb鈥 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.

讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 讜诇讚 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 拽专讘

In addition, the word 鈥渉e [hu]鈥 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.

讜诇讚 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 讚注讜诇讛 讜讗砖诐 讝讻专讬诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讜诇讚 讛诐 讗讬 讚讞讟讗转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讜诇讚 讛诪注讜砖专转 讜诇讚 讛诪注讜砖专转 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 注讘专讛 注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专 拽讗 讙诪专 诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes [ya鈥檃vor] under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to a firstborn, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart [veha鈥檃varta] 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鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 13:12).

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 讻讜壮

搂 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 [be岣g].

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛诐 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛诐 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪注爪专转 讘注讬 诪讬讻诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 讘注爪专转

Since the term 岣g 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: 鈥淲hen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it鈥 (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鈥橝tzeret].

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讞讙 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讙 砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 驻住讞 转谞讬 注爪专转

Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the meaning of the word 岣g 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鈥檛 he explain the mishna in this manner? The Gemara answers: Wherever the tanna teaches the word Pesa岣 in a mishna, and he wishes also to teach something about Shavuot, he uses the term atzeret rather than the word 岣g.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗住讛讚讜转讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 拽诪住讛讬讚 讛讜讗 讚拽专讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻转讜讚讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 7:12). What does the term 鈥渙ffer it [yakrivenu]鈥 serve to say?

诪驻专讬砖 转讜讚讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讜诇讞诪讛 注诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘

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: 鈥淗e offers a thanks offering,鈥 indicating that he may offer either one.

讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖谞讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讜诇讚讜转 转诪讜专讜转 讜讞诇讬驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讝讘讞 讛转讜讚讛 转讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜讞诇讬驻转讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

One might have thought that even the second should require the accompanying loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ffer it,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if鈥s a thanksgiving,鈥 teaching that they may all be sacrificed as thanks offerings. One might have thought that all of them require loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of thanksgiving,鈥 which indicates that only the thanks offering itself requires loaves, but its offspring and its substitute and its replacement do not require loaves.

诪转谞讬壮 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 讜诇讚讛 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻注讜诇讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜讻诇讬诇 诇讗砖讬诐 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛

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鈥檈v] 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讗 拽专讬讘讛 讗讘诇 转诪讜专讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 谞诪讬 拽专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na 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鈥檚 sanctity as a substitute, may also be sacrificed, even the Rabbis concede that the offspring may be sacrificed.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 拽专讘讛 注讜诇讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 专讜注讛 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 讬讞讬讚 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讝诇讬

Rav 岣sda 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 18

讗讬 讚讗砖诐 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇专注讬讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛 诇注讜诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞讟讗转 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诇诪讬转讛 讜拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讛拽专讘讛

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.

讜讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 拽专讘讛 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇讞讟讗转 讜拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐

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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 注讘专 讜诪拽专讬讘 拽讗讬 讘注砖讛

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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻讜壮 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讜讛讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

搂 The baraita stated that in contrast to Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva says that the word 鈥渙nly鈥 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: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering鈥 (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鈥檛 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?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛

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.

谞讬转拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 谞讬转拽 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

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: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering,鈥 meaning that it shall remain in its present state of a guilt offering.

讜诇讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诇讚 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜诇转诪讜专转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉

搂 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 鈥渋f male if female,鈥 while according to the other it is derived from the phrase in the verse in Deuteronomy 鈥淵ou shall take and go.鈥 The Gemara objects: And according to this tanna of the second baraita, who derives this halakha from these verses: 鈥淵ou shall take and go,鈥 and: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 let him derive it from the words 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale.鈥 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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淚f male if female,鈥 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 鈥渋f,鈥 which is a common term and is not considered superfluous.

讜诇讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转砖讗 讜讘讗转 诪讛 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬专注讬讬讛讜 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪诪讜专讙讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to this tanna of the first baraita, who derives all of the halakhot from the words 鈥渋f male if female,鈥 what does he do with the phrase in the verse 鈥淵ou shall take and go鈥? 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽专讘

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鈥檌m. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 讜注诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛讜诇讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽专讘

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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 注诇 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 讗谞讬 诪注讬讚 砖讛讬转讛 诇谞讜 驻专讛 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇谞讜讛 讘驻住讞 讜讗讻诇谞讜 讜诇讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讞讙

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘谞讜 诇讛壮 讜讗诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:1). The term 鈥渁nd if [ve鈥檌m],鈥 can be read as: And a mother [ve鈥檈m], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, but not the offspring.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, then with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving鈥 (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鈥檛 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: 鈥淚f for a thanksgiving,鈥 which indicates that they may be offered as a thanks offering in any case.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛诐 注讚专讬诐 注讚专讬诐

Rather, Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 转谞讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 砖讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讛 谞讬讻专转 诪讞砖讘转讜 讚诇讙讚诇 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诐 讻砖讘 讛讜讗 诪拽专讬讘 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜谉 拽专讘 讜诇讚 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘

Rabbi 岣yya 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: 鈥淚f he sacrifices a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 3:7). Two limitations are derived from this verse: The word 鈥渓amb鈥 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.

讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 讜诇讚 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 拽专讘

In addition, the word 鈥渉e [hu]鈥 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.

讜诇讚 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 讚注讜诇讛 讜讗砖诐 讝讻专讬诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讜诇讚 讛诐 讗讬 讚讞讟讗转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讜诇讚 讛诪注讜砖专转 讜诇讚 讛诪注讜砖专转 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 注讘专讛 注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专 拽讗 讙诪专 诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes [ya鈥檃vor] under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to a firstborn, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart [veha鈥檃varta] 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鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 13:12).

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 讻讜壮

搂 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 [be岣g].

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛诐 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛诐 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪注爪专转 讘注讬 诪讬讻诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 讘注爪专转

Since the term 岣g 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: 鈥淲hen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it鈥 (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鈥橝tzeret].

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讞讙 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讙 砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 驻住讞 转谞讬 注爪专转

Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the meaning of the word 岣g 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鈥檛 he explain the mishna in this manner? The Gemara answers: Wherever the tanna teaches the word Pesa岣 in a mishna, and he wishes also to teach something about Shavuot, he uses the term atzeret rather than the word 岣g.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗住讛讚讜转讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 拽诪住讛讬讚 讛讜讗 讚拽专讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻转讜讚讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 7:12). What does the term 鈥渙ffer it [yakrivenu]鈥 serve to say?

诪驻专讬砖 转讜讚讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讜诇讞诪讛 注诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘

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: 鈥淗e offers a thanks offering,鈥 indicating that he may offer either one.

讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖谞讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讜诇讚讜转 转诪讜专讜转 讜讞诇讬驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讝讘讞 讛转讜讚讛 转讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讜讞诇讬驻转讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

One might have thought that even the second should require the accompanying loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ffer it,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if鈥s a thanksgiving,鈥 teaching that they may all be sacrificed as thanks offerings. One might have thought that all of them require loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of thanksgiving,鈥 which indicates that only the thanks offering itself requires loaves, but its offspring and its substitute and its replacement do not require loaves.

诪转谞讬壮 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讚 讜诇讚 讜诇讚讛 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻注讜诇讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜讻诇讬诇 诇讗砖讬诐 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛

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鈥檈v] 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讗 拽专讬讘讛 讗讘诇 转诪讜专讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 谞诪讬 拽专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na 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鈥檚 sanctity as a substitute, may also be sacrificed, even the Rabbis concede that the offspring may be sacrificed.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讜诇讚 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 拽专讘讛 注讜诇讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 专讜注讛 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 讬讞讬讚 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讝诇讬

Rav 岣sda 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜

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.

Scroll To Top