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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 8, 2019 | 讝壮 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 20

The gemara continues to discuss different approaches to one who sanctifies a female for a type of sacrifice that a female can’t be used for – is there inherent sanctity for the animal or not? Is this different for a burnt offering than for others – why would there be reason to distinguish?


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

讜诇驻住讞讜 讜诇讗砖诪讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

or for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering, although these offerings are brought only from male animals, it is still consecrated with inherent sanctity. Therefore, if one exchanges for it a non-sacred animal, he renders that animal a substitute, which is consecrated with the same sanctity as the original animal.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇转讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜诇讗砖诪讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Sages and says: The halakha is not the same in all these cases. Granted, if he consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering, it renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute, as there is burnt offering status for female birds. For this reason it is consecrated with inherent sanctity and can be sold only after it has become blemished. But if he consecrates a female animal for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering it is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it may be sold even without a blemish. Therefore, it does not render the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 讛专讜注讛 诇讛住转讗讘

This ruling is based upon the principle that no animal renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute except for an animal that has inherent sanctity, which means that even if it may not be sacrificed, it must still be left to graze in order to become blemished, after which it is sold, and the proceeds from the sale are used to purchase a fit offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讞 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, with regard to this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the Paschal offering, that a non-sacred animal exchanged for a female which was designated for a Paschal offering does not become consecrated as a substitute. I disagree, since a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed after Passover as a peace offering, and a peace offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal that was designated for a Paschal offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, as there is peace offering status for female animals. It should not be sold unless it has a blemish, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讗砖诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And let him also say: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a guilt offering, for the same reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with regard to the Paschal offering, since a leftover guilt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, and a bird burnt offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal designated as a guilt offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Leftover guilt offerings are used for communal gift offerings, i.e., they are sold and the money is used to purchase communal gift offerings, and a substitute cannot be designated for a communal offering.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇转讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讛讗讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讙讘讬 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

搂 The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita: It might enter your mind to say that this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who designates a female animal for his burnt offering: One renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute due to that reason, that it has burnt offering status because of the case of a bird burnt offering, which may be brought as a female.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛驻专讬砖 驻专讛 诇驻专讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗讬讻讗 驻专转 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讜拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 转诪讜专讛

But if that is so, in the case of a High Priest who designated a female cow instead of his male bull that he is obligated to bring as a sin offering on Yom Kippur, it should be sanctified with regard to rendering a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Here too, the status of a sin offering is upon it, as the red heifer of purification is similar to a sin offering and is female. The Gemara answers: The red heifer is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, as it is not sacrificed upon the altar; rather, it is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for them a substitute.

讬讞讬讚 砖讛驻专讬砖 砖注讬专 诇砖注讬专转讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 谞砖讬讗 砖讛驻专讬砖 砖注讬专讛 诇砖注讬专讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪驻专讬砖 砖注讬专讛

The Gemara objects: According to Rabbi Shimon, if an individual, who is obligated to bring a female animal as a sin offering, designated a male goat instead of his female goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, as it has sin offering status, due to the case of the male goat brought as a sin offering by the king. Alternatively, if a king, who is obligated to bring a male animal as a sin offering, designated a female goat instead of his male goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, since here too it has sin offering status, as an individual designates a female goat as a sin offering. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should have stated that these animals render non-sacred animals exchanged for them consecrated as substitutes.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Neither a female goat brought as a sin offering by a king nor a male goat brought as a sin offering by an individual are considered to have sin offering status. The reason is that these, the king and an individual, are two distinct bodies, and the status of an offering can be conferred only when such an offering is brought by people of the same status.

讞讟讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讻讬 诪驻专讬砖 砖注讬专 诇砖注讬专转讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讞讟讗 讛砖转讗 讘专 讗讬转讜讬讬 砖注讬专 讛讜讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讟讗 诇讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 讘砖注讬专

The Gemara objects: If so, then in a case where an individual sinned and is obligated to bring a female goat as a sin offering prior to being appointed as king, and he did not designate an animal as his offering before his appointment, if he designates a male goat instead of his female goat following his appointment, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to substitution. In this situation, it should have sin offering status, as, if he sinned now, he is obligated to bring a male goat. The Gemara explains: This is not correct, as he did not sin when he was a king, and therefore was not actually obligated to bring a male goat, but a female goat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 拽诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that the individual鈥檚 appointment as king does not give sin offering status to the male goat designated as a sin offering for a sin committed prior to his appointment, here too, one should say that a female animal designated for a burnt offering does not have burnt offering status, as the person is not a poor leper, and therefore he does not bring a bird burnt offering. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that such an animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜 转讜专 讗讜 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛

The Gemara explains: The baraita is not referring to an obligatory burnt offering but rather to a voluntary burnt offering, and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that anyone, even a wealthy man, can bring a bird if he vows to bring a burnt offering. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 107a) that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which animal, brings a lamb, which is the smallest animal that a wealthy man can bring as a burnt offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may even bring a dove or pigeons as a bird burnt offering.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讛 讘讛谉 讘讛诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the baraita: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 4:7): In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and among them there is an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, or multiple such animals that are males and females, what should be done with them?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讚诪讬讛谉 讬驻诇讜 注诐 砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any males should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as burnt offerings. And any females, as they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讜转 讜砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt offerings. Therefore, any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, and any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, and their monetary value that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and bring burnt offerings. And according to both opinions, the rest of the property, which is not suitable for sacrificial use, is allocated for Temple maintenance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪拽专讘谉 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讗 诪讻讞 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讬讛 拽讗转讬讬谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, as that was the intention of the one who consecrated them, how can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings? He explains the difficulty: Their status stems from deferred sanctity, as they were consecrated to be burnt offerings, and a female that was designated as a burnt offering is not sacrificed upon the altar, but instead is left to graze until it becomes blemished and is then sold.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗诪讗讬 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘注讬讗 专注讬讬讛

The Gemara cites another version of this statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, is this to say that he consecrated them with inherent sanctity? If so, why are the females sold for the needs of peace offerings? Since they were consecrated as burnt offerings, it is required that they be left to graze until they become blemished.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 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 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said with regard to anything that is not fit to be sacrificed itself upon the altar that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If one designated a female for a guilt offering, for which one must bring a male, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale. And we say that the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that as a female animal is not fit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, inherent sanctity does not descend upon it.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙讘讬 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba objected to Rabbi Yo岣nan: You can say that Rabbi Shimon expressed his opinion specifically with regard to one who consecrates a female for a guilt offering,

讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗砖诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 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 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

where there is no guilt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, as a female guilt offering is never brought. But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, where there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it has inherent sanctity, and therefore it should not be sold for the needs of a peace offering.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注讜诇转讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

In addition, another objection can be raised against the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon maintains that one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. This indicates that it does have inherent sanctity with regard to this issue. Therefore, the question remains: How can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings, when their status stems from deferred sanctity?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 诇注讜诇转讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba in response: I meant that Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the interpretation of the other tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even one who consecrates a female as his burnt offering does not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Even though there is burnt offering status for female birds, a female animal consecrated as a burnt offering does not have inherent sanctity. Therefore, it is sold and sacrificed as a peace offering, and its status is not considered to stem from deferred sanctity.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 注讜诇讜转

MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, they are all left to graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze; rather they are left to die. And 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.

讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 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 注讜诇讛

These tanna鈥檌m similarly disagree about the following case: A guilt offering whose owner died, and a guilt offering that was lost and its owner gained atonement with another animal, graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: The owner must bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale.

讜讛诇讗 讗祝 谞讚讘讛 注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注讜诇讛 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜谞住讻讬讛 诪砖诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 砖诇讜

The mishna objects: But even according to the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 a gift offering also a burnt offering? And what then is the difference between the statement of Rabbi Elazar and the statement of the Rabbis? Rather, the Rabbis are referring to a communal burnt offering and Rabbi Elazar is referring to an individual burnt offering, and there are several differences between these two offerings: When the animal comes as an individual burnt offering, the owner places his hands upon it and brings the accompanying meal offering and libations, and its libations come from his own property. If the owner of the animal was a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are his.

讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讜谞住讻讬讛 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诪砖诇 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

And when it is a communal gift offering, the owner of the animal that was sold does not place his hands upon it, as there is no placing of hands for communal offerings, and he does not bring its libations; rather, its libations are brought from the property of the community. Furthermore, although the owner of the animal that was sold is a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are divided among the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple that week.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about two cases, the substitute of a guilt offering and the halakha of a guilt offering whose owner died. The Gemara explains that both disputes are necessary.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗砖诐 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬诪讜转讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

As, had the tanna taught us the dispute only in the case of the guilt offering where the owner achieved atonement through another animal, I might have said that perhaps it is in this case alone that Rabbi Eliezer says that the animals are left to die. This would be because he holds that there is a rabbinic decree concerning what to do with a guilt offering following the owner having achieved atonement, due to the case of a guilt offering before the owner achieved atonement. If burnt offerings were brought with the money from the sale in a case where the owner already achieved atonement by means of another offering, people might mistakenly say that if a guilt offering was lost and another was designated in its place, there too the other animal is sold and burnt offerings are brought from the proceeds. In fact, in that case, as atonement has not yet been achieved, that money must actually be used for a guilt offering.

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讜诇讚 转诪讜专转讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉

But with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of its substitute, which in any case are sent to graze, even if the owner did not achieve atonement with another animal, one might say that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis, as there is no need for such a decree.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗砖诐 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

And had the tanna taught us the dispute only there, in the case of the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of the substitute, I might have said that perhaps it is only in this case that the Rabbis say the animals are sent to graze, as there is no reason for a decree. But with regard to the case of a guilt offering where the owners achieved atonement, one might say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the animals are left to die, as a decree. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 讗砖诐

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only after atonement has been achieved, i.e., after the guilt offering has been sacrificed. But before atonement is achieved, and the consecrated animal and the substitute are both present, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a guilt offering, if the owner wishes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘讚讘专 讛讘讗 讘注讘讬专讛 讜注讜讚 讛转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜谉 拽专讘 讜诇讚 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘

Rava said: There are two refutations of this statement: One is that a person cannot achieve atonement through an item that comes from a transgression, and this offspring comes from a transgression, as its mother offspring was rendered a substitute, which is prohibited. And in addition, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nanya teach a baraita in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that only the first offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed? Here too, the offspring of a substitute is considered like the second offspring, as it is two stages removed from the original offering.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽讜讚诐 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 拽专讘 注讜诇讛

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only before atonement has been achieved,as Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is left to die, due to a concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering, whereas the Rabbis say that it is left to graze, as there is no concern that it will be brought as a guilt offering. But after the original guilt offering is sacrificed and atonement has been achieved, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering, as there is no further concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nanya teach a baraita in support of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the second offspring is not sacrificed? How, then, can the offspring of the substitute be sacrificed, as it too should be treated like the second offspring? The Gemara concedes: That is difficult.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讛驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讘谞讛 诪讛讜 砖讬拽专讘 诇注讜诇讛 讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya inquired of Rabbi Avin bar Kahana: If one designated a female animal as a guilt offering and it gave birth to a male, what is the halakha with regard to whether its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering? The Gemara questions the necessity of this inquiry: And let him resolve the inquiry from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Rabbi Elazar concedes that if one designates a female animal as a guilt offering, the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, as there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as the mother, and likewise it is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, as the mother was designated as a guilt offering. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya never heard that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讛 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 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 讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara returns to the inquiry of Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya: What is the halakha? Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya: Its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering. Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya challenges his response: What is this? Rabbi Elazar says in the mishna (18b) that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only when he designates a female animal as a burnt offering and then it gives birth to a male, 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 a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering and subsequently gave birth to a male, where there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed at all.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 诇讛拽专讘讛 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛

Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to him in response: The reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, that the offspring of a female animal designated as a burnt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, is not because there is burnt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, but rather because it is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, and this offspring of the female animal designated as a guilt offering is also fit to be sacrificed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讛 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讬谉

Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya raised an objection to Rabbi Avin bar Kahana from the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says that in the case of the offspring of a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering or the offspring of the substitute of a guilt offering, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they graze until they become blemished, and then they are sold, and the owner brings an individual burnt offering with the money received for their sale. The Gemara infers: With the money received for their sale, yes, he brings a burnt offering,

  • 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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 20

讜诇驻住讞讜 讜诇讗砖诪讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

or for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering, although these offerings are brought only from male animals, it is still consecrated with inherent sanctity. Therefore, if one exchanges for it a non-sacred animal, he renders that animal a substitute, which is consecrated with the same sanctity as the original animal.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇转讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜诇讗砖诪讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Sages and says: The halakha is not the same in all these cases. Granted, if he consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering, it renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute, as there is burnt offering status for female birds. For this reason it is consecrated with inherent sanctity and can be sold only after it has become blemished. But if he consecrates a female animal for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering it is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it may be sold even without a blemish. Therefore, it does not render the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 讛专讜注讛 诇讛住转讗讘

This ruling is based upon the principle that no animal renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute except for an animal that has inherent sanctity, which means that even if it may not be sacrificed, it must still be left to graze in order to become blemished, after which it is sold, and the proceeds from the sale are used to purchase a fit offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讞 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, with regard to this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the Paschal offering, that a non-sacred animal exchanged for a female which was designated for a Paschal offering does not become consecrated as a substitute. I disagree, since a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed after Passover as a peace offering, and a peace offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal that was designated for a Paschal offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, as there is peace offering status for female animals. It should not be sold unless it has a blemish, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讗砖诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And let him also say: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a guilt offering, for the same reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with regard to the Paschal offering, since a leftover guilt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, and a bird burnt offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal designated as a guilt offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Leftover guilt offerings are used for communal gift offerings, i.e., they are sold and the money is used to purchase communal gift offerings, and a substitute cannot be designated for a communal offering.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙讘讬 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇注讜诇转讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讛讗讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讙讘讬 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

搂 The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita: It might enter your mind to say that this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who designates a female animal for his burnt offering: One renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute due to that reason, that it has burnt offering status because of the case of a bird burnt offering, which may be brought as a female.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛驻专讬砖 驻专讛 诇驻专讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗讬讻讗 驻专转 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讜拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 转诪讜专讛

But if that is so, in the case of a High Priest who designated a female cow instead of his male bull that he is obligated to bring as a sin offering on Yom Kippur, it should be sanctified with regard to rendering a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Here too, the status of a sin offering is upon it, as the red heifer of purification is similar to a sin offering and is female. The Gemara answers: The red heifer is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, as it is not sacrificed upon the altar; rather, it is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for them a substitute.

讬讞讬讚 砖讛驻专讬砖 砖注讬专 诇砖注讬专转讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 谞砖讬讗 砖讛驻专讬砖 砖注讬专讛 诇砖注讬专讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪驻专讬砖 砖注讬专讛

The Gemara objects: According to Rabbi Shimon, if an individual, who is obligated to bring a female animal as a sin offering, designated a male goat instead of his female goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, as it has sin offering status, due to the case of the male goat brought as a sin offering by the king. Alternatively, if a king, who is obligated to bring a male animal as a sin offering, designated a female goat instead of his male goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, since here too it has sin offering status, as an individual designates a female goat as a sin offering. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should have stated that these animals render non-sacred animals exchanged for them consecrated as substitutes.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Neither a female goat brought as a sin offering by a king nor a male goat brought as a sin offering by an individual are considered to have sin offering status. The reason is that these, the king and an individual, are two distinct bodies, and the status of an offering can be conferred only when such an offering is brought by people of the same status.

讞讟讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讻讬 诪驻专讬砖 砖注讬专 诇砖注讬专转讜 转讬拽讚讜砖 讚讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讞讟讗 讛砖转讗 讘专 讗讬转讜讬讬 砖注讬专 讛讜讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讟讗 诇讗 讗讬讞讬讬讘 讘砖注讬专

The Gemara objects: If so, then in a case where an individual sinned and is obligated to bring a female goat as a sin offering prior to being appointed as king, and he did not designate an animal as his offering before his appointment, if he designates a male goat instead of his female goat following his appointment, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to substitution. In this situation, it should have sin offering status, as, if he sinned now, he is obligated to bring a male goat. The Gemara explains: This is not correct, as he did not sin when he was a king, and therefore was not actually obligated to bring a male goat, but a female goat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 拽诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that the individual鈥檚 appointment as king does not give sin offering status to the male goat designated as a sin offering for a sin committed prior to his appointment, here too, one should say that a female animal designated for a burnt offering does not have burnt offering status, as the person is not a poor leper, and therefore he does not bring a bird burnt offering. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that such an animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜 转讜专 讗讜 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛

The Gemara explains: The baraita is not referring to an obligatory burnt offering but rather to a voluntary burnt offering, and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that anyone, even a wealthy man, can bring a bird if he vows to bring a burnt offering. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 107a) that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which animal, brings a lamb, which is the smallest animal that a wealthy man can bring as a burnt offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may even bring a dove or pigeons as a bird burnt offering.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讛 讘讛谉 讘讛诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讜转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the baraita: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 4:7): In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and among them there is an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, or multiple such animals that are males and females, what should be done with them?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讚诪讬讛谉 讬驻诇讜 注诐 砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any males should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as burnt offerings. And any females, as they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讜转 讜砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt offerings. Therefore, any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, and any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, and their monetary value that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and bring burnt offerings. And according to both opinions, the rest of the property, which is not suitable for sacrificial use, is allocated for Temple maintenance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪拽专讘谉 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讗 诪讻讞 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讬讛 拽讗转讬讬谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, as that was the intention of the one who consecrated them, how can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings? He explains the difficulty: Their status stems from deferred sanctity, as they were consecrated to be burnt offerings, and a female that was designated as a burnt offering is not sacrificed upon the altar, but instead is left to graze until it becomes blemished and is then sold.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讝讻专讬诐 注爪诪谉 讬拽专讘讜 注讜诇讜转 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗诪讗讬 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘注讬讗 专注讬讬讛

The Gemara cites another version of this statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, is this to say that he consecrated them with inherent sanctity? If so, why are the females sold for the needs of peace offerings? Since they were consecrated as burnt offerings, it is required that they be left to graze until they become blemished.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 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 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said with regard to anything that is not fit to be sacrificed itself upon the altar that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If one designated a female for a guilt offering, for which one must bring a male, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale. And we say that the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that as a female animal is not fit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, inherent sanctity does not descend upon it.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙讘讬 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba objected to Rabbi Yo岣nan: You can say that Rabbi Shimon expressed his opinion specifically with regard to one who consecrates a female for a guilt offering,

讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗砖诐 注诇 讗诪讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 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 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

where there is no guilt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, as a female guilt offering is never brought. But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, where there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it has inherent sanctity, and therefore it should not be sold for the needs of a peace offering.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注讜诇转讜 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

In addition, another objection can be raised against the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon maintains that one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. This indicates that it does have inherent sanctity with regard to this issue. Therefore, the question remains: How can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings, when their status stems from deferred sanctity?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 诇注讜诇转讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba in response: I meant that Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the interpretation of the other tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even one who consecrates a female as his burnt offering does not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Even though there is burnt offering status for female birds, a female animal consecrated as a burnt offering does not have inherent sanctity. Therefore, it is sold and sacrificed as a peace offering, and its status is not considered to stem from deferred sanctity.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 注讜诇讜转

MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, they are all left to graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze; rather they are left to die. And 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.

讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讜砖讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 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 注讜诇讛

These tanna鈥檌m similarly disagree about the following case: A guilt offering whose owner died, and a guilt offering that was lost and its owner gained atonement with another animal, graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: The owner must bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale.

讜讛诇讗 讗祝 谞讚讘讛 注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注讜诇讛 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜谞住讻讬讛 诪砖诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 砖诇讜

The mishna objects: But even according to the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 a gift offering also a burnt offering? And what then is the difference between the statement of Rabbi Elazar and the statement of the Rabbis? Rather, the Rabbis are referring to a communal burnt offering and Rabbi Elazar is referring to an individual burnt offering, and there are several differences between these two offerings: When the animal comes as an individual burnt offering, the owner places his hands upon it and brings the accompanying meal offering and libations, and its libations come from his own property. If the owner of the animal was a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are his.

讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讜谞住讻讬讛 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诪砖诇 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

And when it is a communal gift offering, the owner of the animal that was sold does not place his hands upon it, as there is no placing of hands for communal offerings, and he does not bring its libations; rather, its libations are brought from the property of the community. Furthermore, although the owner of the animal that was sold is a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are divided among the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple that week.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about two cases, the substitute of a guilt offering and the halakha of a guilt offering whose owner died. The Gemara explains that both disputes are necessary.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗砖诐 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬诪讜转讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

As, had the tanna taught us the dispute only in the case of the guilt offering where the owner achieved atonement through another animal, I might have said that perhaps it is in this case alone that Rabbi Eliezer says that the animals are left to die. This would be because he holds that there is a rabbinic decree concerning what to do with a guilt offering following the owner having achieved atonement, due to the case of a guilt offering before the owner achieved atonement. If burnt offerings were brought with the money from the sale in a case where the owner already achieved atonement by means of another offering, people might mistakenly say that if a guilt offering was lost and another was designated in its place, there too the other animal is sold and burnt offerings are brought from the proceeds. In fact, in that case, as atonement has not yet been achieved, that money must actually be used for a guilt offering.

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讜诇讚 转诪讜专转讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉

But with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of its substitute, which in any case are sent to graze, even if the owner did not achieve atonement with another animal, one might say that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis, as there is no need for such a decree.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗砖诐 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

And had the tanna taught us the dispute only there, in the case of the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of the substitute, I might have said that perhaps it is only in this case that the Rabbis say the animals are sent to graze, as there is no reason for a decree. But with regard to the case of a guilt offering where the owners achieved atonement, one might say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the animals are left to die, as a decree. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 讗砖诐

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only after atonement has been achieved, i.e., after the guilt offering has been sacrificed. But before atonement is achieved, and the consecrated animal and the substitute are both present, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a guilt offering, if the owner wishes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘讚讘专 讛讘讗 讘注讘讬专讛 讜注讜讚 讛转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜谉 拽专讘 讜诇讚 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘

Rava said: There are two refutations of this statement: One is that a person cannot achieve atonement through an item that comes from a transgression, and this offspring comes from a transgression, as its mother offspring was rendered a substitute, which is prohibited. And in addition, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nanya teach a baraita in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that only the first offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed? Here too, the offspring of a substitute is considered like the second offspring, as it is two stages removed from the original offering.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽讜讚诐 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 拽专讘 注讜诇讛

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only before atonement has been achieved,as Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is left to die, due to a concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering, whereas the Rabbis say that it is left to graze, as there is no concern that it will be brought as a guilt offering. But after the original guilt offering is sacrificed and atonement has been achieved, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering, as there is no further concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣nanya teach a baraita in support of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the second offspring is not sacrificed? How, then, can the offspring of the substitute be sacrificed, as it too should be treated like the second offspring? The Gemara concedes: That is difficult.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讛驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讘谞讛 诪讛讜 砖讬拽专讘 诇注讜诇讛 讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya inquired of Rabbi Avin bar Kahana: If one designated a female animal as a guilt offering and it gave birth to a male, what is the halakha with regard to whether its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering? The Gemara questions the necessity of this inquiry: And let him resolve the inquiry from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Rabbi Elazar concedes that if one designates a female animal as a guilt offering, the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, as there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as the mother, and likewise it is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, as the mother was designated as a guilt offering. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya never heard that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讛 拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 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 讗砖诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 注诇 讗诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara returns to the inquiry of Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya: What is the halakha? Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya: Its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering. Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya challenges his response: What is this? Rabbi Elazar says in the mishna (18b) that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only when he designates a female animal as a burnt offering and then it gives birth to a male, 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 a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering and subsequently gave birth to a male, where there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed at all.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 诇讛拽专讘讛 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛

Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to him in response: The reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, that the offspring of a female animal designated as a burnt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, is not because there is burnt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, but rather because it is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, and this offspring of the female animal designated as a guilt offering is also fit to be sacrificed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜诇讚谉 讜诇讚 讜诇讚谉 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讜诇讛 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讬谉

Rabbi Avin bar 岣yya raised an objection to Rabbi Avin bar Kahana from the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says that in the case of the offspring of a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering or the offspring of the substitute of a guilt offering, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they graze until they become blemished, and then they are sold, and the owner brings an individual burnt offering with the money received for their sale. The Gemara infers: With the money received for their sale, yes, he brings a burnt offering,

Scroll To Top