Temurah 19

אבל גבי תמורת ולד אשם דליכא שם עולה על אמו מודי רבי אלעזר דבדמיו אין הוא עצמו לא קרב

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.

איתיביה אביי וכי בעי רבי אלעזר שם עולה על אמו והא תניא המפריש נקבה לפסחו ירעה עד שיסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח

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’t 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.

נשתיירה אחר הפסח תרעה עד שיסתאב ויביא בדמיה שלמים ילדה ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו שלמים רבי אלעזר אומר הוא עצמו יקרב בשלמים

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.

והא הכא דליכא שם שלמים על אמו ואמר רבי אלעזר יקרב שלמים אמר ליה רבי אלעזר אחר הפסח קא אמרת שאני אחר הפסח דמותר פסח גופיה קרב שלמים

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.

אי הכי ניפלוג נמי ברישא אמר ליה אין הכי נמי ופליגי

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.

אביי אמר לא פליג מידי דגמירי למקום שהמותר הולך הולד הולך לאחר הפסח דמותר קרב שלמים ולד נמי קרב שלמים

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.

אבל לפני הפסח אימיה למאי אקדשה לדמי פסח ולד נמי לדמי פסח

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.

מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא ומי אמרינן מדאימיה לדמי ולד נמי לדמי והתניא המפריש נקבה לפסח היא וולדותיה ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמיהם פסח רבי אלעזר אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama 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’t 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.

והא הכא דאימיה לדמי ואמר רבי אלעזר הוא עצמו קרב פסח ולא מוקמינן ליה באימיה

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.

אמר רבינא במפריש בהמה מעוברת עסקינן רבי אלעזר סבר כרבי יוחנן דאמר אם שיירו משוייר דעובר לאו ירך אמו הוא ואמו היא דלא קדשה קדושת הגוף אבל היא קדשה

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 Yoḥanan, 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.

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא הכי נמי מסתברא דבבהמה מעוברת עסקינן מדקתני היא וולדותיה שמע מיניה

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.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא ומודה רבי אלעזר במפריש נקבה לאשם דאין בנה קרב אשם פשיטא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אלעזר אלא במפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אבל גבי מפריש נקבה לאשם דליכא שם אשם על אמו אפילו רבי אלעזר מודה דלא קרב אשם

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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’t 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.

אי לאו דאשמעינן הוה אמינא טעמא דרבי אלעזר לאו משום דשם עולה על אמו אלא משום דחזי ולד להקרבה והאי נמי הא חזי להקרבה קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers that this statement is nevertheless necessary, for if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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.

אי הכי אדמשמע לן דאין בנה קרב אשם נישמעינן דאין בנה קרב עולה והוא הדין לאשם

The Gemara objects: If so, that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling is necessary to exclude the possibility that Rabbi Elazar’s 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.

אי אשמעינן עולה הוה אמינא עולה הוא דלא קרבה דלא אקדשה לאמה קדושה עוברה אבל אשם אימא ולד קרב אשם קא משמע לן

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.

מתני׳ המפריש נקבה לאשם תרעה עד שתסתאב ותימכר ויביא בדמיה אשם ואם קרב אשמו יפלו דמיו לנדבה

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.

רבי שמעון אומר תימכר שלא במום

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.

גמ׳ ולמה לי תסתאב תימכר כיון דלא חזיא למילתא היינו מומא

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב היינו טעם דאמרינן מיגו דנחתא לה קדושת דמים נחתא נמי קדושת הגוף אמר רבא זאת אומרת הקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף

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.

איתמר הקדיש זכר לדמיו רב כהנא אמר קדוש קדושת הגוף רבא אמר אינו קדוש קדושת הגוף והדר ביה רבא לדרב כהנא מדרב יהודה אמר רב

It was stated that this issue is subject to a dispute of amora’im: 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.

רבי שמעון אומר תימכר שלא במום אמר ליה רב חייא בר אבין לרבי יוחנן מיגו דנחתא ליה קדושת דמים תיחות ליה נמי קדושת הגוף

§ 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 Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Why doesn’t 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?

אמר ליה רבי שמעון לטעמיה דאמר כל מידי דלא חזי ליה לגופיה לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף דתניא אשם בן שנה והביאו בן שתים בן שתים והביאו בן שנה כשירה ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Ḥiyya 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.

רבי שמעון אומר כל עצמן אינן קדושין

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.

והרי מחוסר זמן דלא חזי ואמר רבי שמעון דקדוש שאני מחוסר זמן דחזי למחר

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.

אי הכי אשם בן שתים והביאו בן שנה הא חזי לשנה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון במחוסר זמן דיליף ליה מבכור

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’t 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.

כדתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אמר משום רבי שמעון מחוסר זמן נכנס לדיר להתעשר והרי הוא כבכור מה בכור קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו אף מחוסר זמן קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו

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.

תנו רבנן המקדיש נקבה לעולתו

§ 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