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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 7, 2019 | 讜壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Temurah 19

Rabbi Elazar holds that a female that is designated as a burnt offering – if she gives birth to a male, he is sacrificed as a burnt offering. This seesmt ocontradict what he says in another mishna regarding the offspring of a substitution of a guilt offering – where he says only its value is sanctified. Three differnet resolutinos are brought and questions are raised and answered against two of the reponses. If one designates a female for guilt offering, what does one do with her? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about this – does one need to wait until she becomes blemishes or not? Does one say since her value is sanctified, so if her body, or is that only the case if one is valid to be brought as a sacrifice?


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

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转诪讜专转 讜诇讚 讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗 拽专讘

But with regard to the offspring of the substitute of a guilt offering, where there is no burnt offering status for its mother, as the animal for which it was substituted was a guilt offering, Rabbi Elazar concedes that an animal purchased with its money, received from selling the offspring, yes, it is sacrificed as a burnt offering, but the offspring itself is not sacrificed as a burnt offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜转诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 驻住讞 讬诇讚讛 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 驻住讞

Abaye raised an objection to Rava: And does Rabbi Elazar require that there be burnt offering status for its mother, in order for the offspring to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering, which must be a male, the animal is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and it is then sold and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received for its sale. If the female animal gave birth to a male,the offspring may not be sacrificed as a Paschal offering despite the fact that it is a male. Rather, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale.

谞砖转讬讬专讛 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 转专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 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 砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐

If the animal remained without a blemish until after Passover, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and he brings a peace offering with the money received for its sale. If it gave birth to a male after Passover, the offspring too is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold, and he brings a peace offering with the money received for its sale. Rabbi Elazar disagrees in the latter case and says: The offspring itself is sacrificed as a peace offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 砖诇诪讬诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诪讜转专 驻住讞 讙讜驻讬讛 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Abaye explains his objection: But here, it is a case where there is no peace offering status for its mother, as the mother was consecrated as a Paschal offering, and yet Rabbi Elazar says that the offspring is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rava said to Abaye in response: Do you say that this statement of Rabbi Elazar with regard to a Paschal offering after Passover contradicts my explanation? Not so; the status of a Paschal offering after Passover is different, as a leftover Paschal offering itself is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, a female animal designated as a Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after Passover.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Abaye asked Rava: If so, that the reason Rabbi Elazar permits the offspring to be sacrificed is that the mother also has the status of a peace offering, let Rabbi Elazar also disagree with the Rabbis in the first clause of the baraita, where the female animal designated as a Paschal offering gave birth before Passover. Rabbi Elazar should state that this offspring itself may be brought as a peace offering, as here too the mother has the status of a peace offering, since a Paschal offering slaughtered before Passover as a peace offering is valid. Rava said to Abaye: Yes, it is indeed so, and they disagree in this case as well.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诪讬讚讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛诪讜转专 讛讜诇讱 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诪讜转专 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Abaye suggested another explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and said: In a case where the female animal designated as a Paschal offering gave birth before Passover, there is nobody who disagrees; rather, they all agree that the offspring may not be sacrificed. As it is learned as a tradition that to the place that the leftover offering goes, the offspring goes as well. Therefore, after Passover, when the leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, the offspring is also sacrificed as a peace offering.

讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗讬诪讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讗拽讚砖讛 诇讚诪讬 驻住讞 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬 驻住讞

But before Passover, when the Paschal offering is not yet considered leftover, the offspring is endowed with the same sanctity as the mother. In what way is the mother consecrated? It is consecrated for the value of a Paschal offering, that is, so that it should be sold and a Paschal offering should be purchased with the proceeds, as the female animal itself may not be sacrificed as a Paschal offering. If so, the offspring as well is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛诐 驻住讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 驻住讞

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma raises an objection to this explanation of Abaye: And do we say that Rabbi Elazar maintains that as its mother is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering, the offspring as well is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who designates a female animal as a Paschal offering, it and its offspring are left to graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received for their sale. Rabbi Elazar says: The offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 拽专讘 驻住讞 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讗讬诪讬讛

But here it is a case where its mother was consecrated for the value of a Paschal offering, and nevertheless Rabbi Elazar said that the offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and we do not establish the status of the offspring based upon the sanctity of the mother.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪驻专讬砖 讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 注住拽讬谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讚注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜讗诪讜 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖讛

Ravina says: One can answer that here we are dealing with a case of one who designates a pregnant animal, and Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said with regard to one who consecrates a pregnant animal for a specific purpose, that if he left it out, i.e., designated the fetus as having a different sanctity, it is left out from the sanctity of the mother and consecrated in accordance with the designated sanctity. The reason is that a fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother, but rather the mother and its offspring are considered two separate animals. Here too, it is only its mother that is not sanctified with the inherent sanctity of a Paschal offering, but only for the value of a Paschal offering, as it is female. But the offspring is consecrated as a Paschal offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讘讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: This, too, stands to reason, that we are dealing with a case where he designated a pregnant animal, from the fact that the baraita teaches: It and its offspring. This indicates that both the mother and its offspring were in existence at the time of the consecration. The Gemara comments: Conclude from here that this explanation is correct.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 讗砖诐 驻砖讬讟讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 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 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗砖诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 讚诇讗 拽专讘 讗砖诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a case where one designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which is only brought from a male animal, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? As Rabbi Elazar states that the offspring may be sacrificed only if one designates a female animal for a burnt offering and it gives birth, due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother. But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering, where there is no guilt offering status for its mother, even Rabbi Elazar concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 讜诇讚 诇讛拽专讘讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that this statement is nevertheless necessary, for if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, had not informed us of this halakha, I would say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, that one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering may sacrifice the offspring as a burnt offering, is not due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird with the same sex as its mother; rather it is because the offspring is fit as an offering, as it is a male, and this too, the offspring of the female that was designated as a guilt offering, is likewise fit as an offering, as it is a male. Therefore, he teaches us that this offspring is not sacrificed even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 讗砖诐 谞讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗砖诐

The Gemara objects: If so, that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 ruling is necessary to exclude the possibility that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is that the offspring is suitable as an offering, then say the following: Rather than teach us that the offspring of a female designated as a guilt offering is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, let him teach us a more expansive ruling, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, despite the fact that the mother is left to graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it is sold, and the proceeds are used for the purchase of a burnt offering. And from that ruling one would know that the same is true that the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 讚诇讗 讗拽讚砖讛 诇讗诪讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注讜讘专讛 讗讘诇 讗砖诐 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讚 拽专讘 讗砖诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: If he would teach us that according to Rabbi Elazar the offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, I would say that it is only as a burnt offering that the offspring is not sacrificed, because he did not consecrate the mother with the same type of sanctity for the sake of which the fetus would be sacrificed. This is because the mother was consecrated as a guilt offering whereas the offspring would have been sacrificed as a burnt offering. But with regard to the option of sacrificing the offspring as a guilt offering, when the offspring has the same type of sanctity as that with which the mother was consecrated, I might say that the offspring is sacrificed as a guilt offering. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 讗砖诐 讜讗诐 拽专讘 讗砖诪讜 讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which may be brought only from males, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold, and he brings a guilt offering with the money received for its sale. And if in the interim, he designated a male animal and his guilt offering was already sacrificed, so that a guilt offering is no longer needed, the money received for the sale of the blemished female is allocated for communal gift offerings.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, its value alone becomes sacred. Therefore, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale.

讙诪壮 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 转住转讗讘 转讬诪讻专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And why do I need to wait until the female animal that was designated as a guilt offering becomes blemished before it can be sold? Let it be sold immediately even without a blemish: Since it is a female and therefore unfit for the matter for which it was designated, this is the same thing as a blemish.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讞转讗 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛拽讚讬砖 讝讻专 诇讚诪讬讜 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the reason that the female animal may not be sold before it becomes blemished, for we say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, therefore inherent sanctity has descended on it as well. Although it may not be sacrificed in any event, its inherent sanctity still mandates that it may not be sold until it becomes blemished. Rava says: That is to say that even if one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, as it becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, it also becomes sanctified with inherent sanctity. And as the animal is fit to be brought as a burnt offering or as a guilt offering, it is sacrificed.

讗讬转诪专 讛拽讚讬砖 讝讻专 诇讚诪讬讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

It was stated that this issue is subject to a dispute of amora鈥檌m: If one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, Rav Kahana says that it is sanctified with inherent sanctity, whereas Rava says that it is not sanctified with inherent sanctity. But Rava later retracted his statement and agreed with the opinion of Rav Kahana, due to the aforementioned statement of Rav Yehuda citing that which Rav said, that as the animal becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, inherent sanctity also takes effect.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 转讬讞讜转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the opinion of the Rabbis and says that a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering may be sold without a blemish, as it is unfit to be sacrificed as the offering for which it was designated, and this itself is considered a blemish. Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, inherent sanctity should descend on it as well, and therefore it may not be sold until it becomes blemished?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖谞讛 讻砖讬专讛 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖诐 讞讜讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says with regard to anything that is not fit itself to be sacrificed upon the altar, that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its first year, such as a guilt offering of a nazirite or of a leper, but the owner brought it when it was in its second year, or a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its second year, such as a guilt offering for robbery, for misuse of consecrated property, or for a designated maidservant, and the owner brought it when it was in its first year, the offering is fit, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring a guilt offering, and he must bring another one.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says that the offering is disqualified, as these offerings themselves are not consecrated, due to the fact that the proper time of their offering has either not yet arrived or has already passed. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon maintains that in such a case there is no inherent sanctity.

讜讛专讬 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖 砖讗谞讬 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讞专

The Gemara objects: But consider the case of one who consecrates an animal whose time has not yet arrived, e.g., an animal that is less than eight days old, which is unfit to be sacrificed, and yet Rabbi Shimon said that it is sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard. This proves that according to Rabbi Shimon, even an offering that is not fit to be sacrificed has inherent sanctity. The Gemara explains that an animal whose time has not yet arrived is different, as it is fit to be offered tomorrow, i.e., automatically at a later stage, and is therefore considered to be fit for an offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖谞讛 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇砖谞讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讘讻讜专

The Gemara objects: If so, that any animal which will be fit to be sacrificed when its time arrives is sanctified with inherent sanctity, the same should also apply to a guilt offering that should be offered when it is in its second year but the owner brought it to be sacrificed when it was in its first year, as it will be fit for sacrifice in another year. Why, then, doesn鈥檛 it have inherent sanctity according to Rabbi Shimon? Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Shimon in the case of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, as he derives it from the halakha of a firstborn.

讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed together with the other animals. And it is considered in this regard to be like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is sanctified before the time when it is fit to be sacrificed has arrived, i.e., immediately after birth, and it is sacrificed after its time, following the eighth day, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived is sanctified before its time has arrived and is sacrificed after its time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇转讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: The Sages taught that one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 19

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转诪讜专转 讜诇讚 讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗 拽专讘

But with regard to the offspring of the substitute of a guilt offering, where there is no burnt offering status for its mother, as the animal for which it was substituted was a guilt offering, Rabbi Elazar concedes that an animal purchased with its money, received from selling the offspring, yes, it is sacrificed as a burnt offering, but the offspring itself is not sacrificed as a burnt offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜转诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 驻住讞 讬诇讚讛 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 驻住讞

Abaye raised an objection to Rava: And does Rabbi Elazar require that there be burnt offering status for its mother, in order for the offspring to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering, which must be a male, the animal is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and it is then sold and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received for its sale. If the female animal gave birth to a male,the offspring may not be sacrificed as a Paschal offering despite the fact that it is a male. Rather, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale.

谞砖转讬讬专讛 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 转专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 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 砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐

If the animal remained without a blemish until after Passover, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and he brings a peace offering with the money received for its sale. If it gave birth to a male after Passover, the offspring too is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold, and he brings a peace offering with the money received for its sale. Rabbi Elazar disagrees in the latter case and says: The offspring itself is sacrificed as a peace offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 砖诇诪讬诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诪讜转专 驻住讞 讙讜驻讬讛 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Abaye explains his objection: But here, it is a case where there is no peace offering status for its mother, as the mother was consecrated as a Paschal offering, and yet Rabbi Elazar says that the offspring is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rava said to Abaye in response: Do you say that this statement of Rabbi Elazar with regard to a Paschal offering after Passover contradicts my explanation? Not so; the status of a Paschal offering after Passover is different, as a leftover Paschal offering itself is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, a female animal designated as a Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after Passover.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Abaye asked Rava: If so, that the reason Rabbi Elazar permits the offspring to be sacrificed is that the mother also has the status of a peace offering, let Rabbi Elazar also disagree with the Rabbis in the first clause of the baraita, where the female animal designated as a Paschal offering gave birth before Passover. Rabbi Elazar should state that this offspring itself may be brought as a peace offering, as here too the mother has the status of a peace offering, since a Paschal offering slaughtered before Passover as a peace offering is valid. Rava said to Abaye: Yes, it is indeed so, and they disagree in this case as well.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诪讬讚讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛诪讜转专 讛讜诇讱 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诪讜转专 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Abaye suggested another explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and said: In a case where the female animal designated as a Paschal offering gave birth before Passover, there is nobody who disagrees; rather, they all agree that the offspring may not be sacrificed. As it is learned as a tradition that to the place that the leftover offering goes, the offspring goes as well. Therefore, after Passover, when the leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, the offspring is also sacrificed as a peace offering.

讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬 讛驻住讞 讗讬诪讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讗拽讚砖讛 诇讚诪讬 驻住讞 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬 驻住讞

But before Passover, when the Paschal offering is not yet considered leftover, the offspring is endowed with the same sanctity as the mother. In what way is the mother consecrated? It is consecrated for the value of a Paschal offering, that is, so that it should be sold and a Paschal offering should be purchased with the proceeds, as the female animal itself may not be sacrificed as a Paschal offering. If so, the offspring as well is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讜诇讚 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛诐 驻住讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 驻住讞

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma raises an objection to this explanation of Abaye: And do we say that Rabbi Elazar maintains that as its mother is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering, the offspring as well is consecrated only for the value of a Paschal offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who designates a female animal as a Paschal offering, it and its offspring are left to graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and he brings a Paschal offering with the money received for their sale. Rabbi Elazar says: The offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 拽专讘 驻住讞 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讗讬诪讬讛

But here it is a case where its mother was consecrated for the value of a Paschal offering, and nevertheless Rabbi Elazar said that the offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and we do not establish the status of the offspring based upon the sanctity of the mother.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪驻专讬砖 讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 注住拽讬谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讚注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜讗诪讜 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖讛

Ravina says: One can answer that here we are dealing with a case of one who designates a pregnant animal, and Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said with regard to one who consecrates a pregnant animal for a specific purpose, that if he left it out, i.e., designated the fetus as having a different sanctity, it is left out from the sanctity of the mother and consecrated in accordance with the designated sanctity. The reason is that a fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother, but rather the mother and its offspring are considered two separate animals. Here too, it is only its mother that is not sanctified with the inherent sanctity of a Paschal offering, but only for the value of a Paschal offering, as it is female. But the offspring is consecrated as a Paschal offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讘讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: This, too, stands to reason, that we are dealing with a case where he designated a pregnant animal, from the fact that the baraita teaches: It and its offspring. This indicates that both the mother and its offspring were in existence at the time of the consecration. The Gemara comments: Conclude from here that this explanation is correct.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 讗砖诐 驻砖讬讟讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 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 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗砖诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 讚诇讗 拽专讘 讗砖诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a case where one designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which is only brought from a male animal, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? As Rabbi Elazar states that the offspring may be sacrificed only if one designates a female animal for a burnt offering and it gives birth, due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother. But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering, where there is no guilt offering status for its mother, even Rabbi Elazar concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬 讜诇讚 诇讛拽专讘讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that this statement is nevertheless necessary, for if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, had not informed us of this halakha, I would say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, that one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering may sacrifice the offspring as a burnt offering, is not due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird with the same sex as its mother; rather it is because the offspring is fit as an offering, as it is a male, and this too, the offspring of the female that was designated as a guilt offering, is likewise fit as an offering, as it is a male. Therefore, he teaches us that this offspring is not sacrificed even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 讗砖诐 谞讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 讘谞讛 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗砖诐

The Gemara objects: If so, that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 ruling is necessary to exclude the possibility that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 reason is that the offspring is suitable as an offering, then say the following: Rather than teach us that the offspring of a female designated as a guilt offering is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, let him teach us a more expansive ruling, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, despite the fact that the mother is left to graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it is sold, and the proceeds are used for the purchase of a burnt offering. And from that ruling one would know that the same is true that the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 讚诇讗 讗拽讚砖讛 诇讗诪讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注讜讘专讛 讗讘诇 讗砖诐 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讚 拽专讘 讗砖诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: If he would teach us that according to Rabbi Elazar the offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, I would say that it is only as a burnt offering that the offspring is not sacrificed, because he did not consecrate the mother with the same type of sanctity for the sake of which the fetus would be sacrificed. This is because the mother was consecrated as a guilt offering whereas the offspring would have been sacrificed as a burnt offering. But with regard to the option of sacrificing the offspring as a guilt offering, when the offspring has the same type of sanctity as that with which the mother was consecrated, I might say that the offspring is sacrificed as a guilt offering. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 讗砖诐 讜讗诐 拽专讘 讗砖诪讜 讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which may be brought only from males, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold, and he brings a guilt offering with the money received for its sale. And if in the interim, he designated a male animal and his guilt offering was already sacrificed, so that a guilt offering is no longer needed, the money received for the sale of the blemished female is allocated for communal gift offerings.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, its value alone becomes sacred. Therefore, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale.

讙诪壮 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 转住转讗讘 转讬诪讻专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And why do I need to wait until the female animal that was designated as a guilt offering becomes blemished before it can be sold? Let it be sold immediately even without a blemish: Since it is a female and therefore unfit for the matter for which it was designated, this is the same thing as a blemish.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讞转讗 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛拽讚讬砖 讝讻专 诇讚诪讬讜 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the reason that the female animal may not be sold before it becomes blemished, for we say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, therefore inherent sanctity has descended on it as well. Although it may not be sacrificed in any event, its inherent sanctity still mandates that it may not be sold until it becomes blemished. Rava says: That is to say that even if one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, as it becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, it also becomes sanctified with inherent sanctity. And as the animal is fit to be brought as a burnt offering or as a guilt offering, it is sacrificed.

讗讬转诪专 讛拽讚讬砖 讝讻专 诇讚诪讬讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

It was stated that this issue is subject to a dispute of amora鈥檌m: If one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, Rav Kahana says that it is sanctified with inherent sanctity, whereas Rava says that it is not sanctified with inherent sanctity. But Rava later retracted his statement and agreed with the opinion of Rav Kahana, due to the aforementioned statement of Rav Yehuda citing that which Rav said, that as the animal becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, inherent sanctity also takes effect.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 转讬讞讜转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the opinion of the Rabbis and says that a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering may be sold without a blemish, as it is unfit to be sacrificed as the offering for which it was designated, and this itself is considered a blemish. Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, inherent sanctity should descend on it as well, and therefore it may not be sold until it becomes blemished?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖谞讛 讻砖讬专讛 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖诐 讞讜讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says with regard to anything that is not fit itself to be sacrificed upon the altar, that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its first year, such as a guilt offering of a nazirite or of a leper, but the owner brought it when it was in its second year, or a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its second year, such as a guilt offering for robbery, for misuse of consecrated property, or for a designated maidservant, and the owner brought it when it was in its first year, the offering is fit, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring a guilt offering, and he must bring another one.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says that the offering is disqualified, as these offerings themselves are not consecrated, due to the fact that the proper time of their offering has either not yet arrived or has already passed. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon maintains that in such a case there is no inherent sanctity.

讜讛专讬 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖 砖讗谞讬 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讞专

The Gemara objects: But consider the case of one who consecrates an animal whose time has not yet arrived, e.g., an animal that is less than eight days old, which is unfit to be sacrificed, and yet Rabbi Shimon said that it is sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard. This proves that according to Rabbi Shimon, even an offering that is not fit to be sacrificed has inherent sanctity. The Gemara explains that an animal whose time has not yet arrived is different, as it is fit to be offered tomorrow, i.e., automatically at a later stage, and is therefore considered to be fit for an offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘谉 砖谞讛 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇砖谞讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讘讻讜专

The Gemara objects: If so, that any animal which will be fit to be sacrificed when its time arrives is sanctified with inherent sanctity, the same should also apply to a guilt offering that should be offered when it is in its second year but the owner brought it to be sacrificed when it was in its first year, as it will be fit for sacrifice in another year. Why, then, doesn鈥檛 it have inherent sanctity according to Rabbi Shimon? Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Shimon in the case of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, as he derives it from the halakha of a firstborn.

讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜拽专讘 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed together with the other animals. And it is considered in this regard to be like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is sanctified before the time when it is fit to be sacrificed has arrived, i.e., immediately after birth, and it is sacrificed after its time, following the eighth day, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived is sanctified before its time has arrived and is sacrificed after its time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇转讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: The Sages taught that one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering

Scroll To Top