Temurah 20

ולפסחו ולאשמו עושה תמורה

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.

רבי שמעון אומר לעולתו עושה תמורה לפסחו ולאשמו אין עושה תמורה

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.

שאין לך דבר עושה תמורה אלא הרועה להסתאב

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.

אמר רבי אין אני רואה דבריו של רבי שמעון בפסח הואיל ומותר הפסח קרב שלמים

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.

ולימא אין אני רואה דבריו של רבי שמעון באשם הואיל ומותר אשם קרב עולה רבי סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי מותרות לנדבת ציבור אזלי ואין תמורה בצבור

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.

קא סלקא דעתך היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון גבי מפריש נקבה לעולתו משום הכי עושה תמורה דהאיכא שם עולה עליה גבי עולת העוף

§ 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.

אלא מעתה בכהן גדול שהפריש פרה לפרו תיקדוש דהאיכא פרת חטאת קדשי בדק הבית הוא וקדשי בדק הבית לא עבדי תמורה

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.

יחיד שהפריש שעיר לשעירתו תיקדוש דהאיכא שעיר נשיא אי נמי נשיא שהפריש שעירה לשעירו תיקדוש דהא יחיד מפריש שעירה

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.

הני תרי גופי נינהו

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.

חטאו עד שלא נתמנו כי מפריש שעיר לשעירתו תיקדוש דהא אילו חטא השתא בר איתויי שעיר הוא הא לא חטא לא איחייב בשעיר

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.

אי הכי הכא נמי הא לאו עולת העוף קמייתי

The Gemara asks: If so, that the individual’s 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?

רבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דתנן הרי עלי עולה יביא כבש רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר או תור או בני יונה

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 (Menaḥot 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.

תנן התם המקדיש נכסיו והיה בהן בהמה ראויה לגבי מזבח זכרים ונקבות

§ The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Shimon’s 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?

רבי אליעזר אומר זכרים ימכרו לצרכי עולות ונקבות ימכרו לצרכי שלמים ודמיהן יפלו עם שאר נכסים לבדק הבית

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.

רבי יהושע אומר זכרים עצמן יקרבו עולות ונקבות ימכרו לצרכי שלמים ויביא בדמיהן עולות ושאר נכסים יפלו לבדק הבית

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.

אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי יוחנן לרבי יהושע דאמר זכרים עצמן יקרבו עולות ונקבות היכי מקרבן שלמים הא מכח קדושה דחוייה קאתיין

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.

לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי יוחנן מדקאמר רבי יהושע זכרים עצמן יקרבו עולות למימרא דקדושת הגוף אקדשינהו אי הכי נקבות אמאי ימכרו לצרכי שלמים בעיא רעייה

The Gemara cites another version of this statement: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.

אמר ליה רבי יהושע סבר לה כרבי שמעון דאמר כל מידי דלא חזי ליה לגופיה לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף דתנן רבי שמעון אומר תמכר שלא במום ואמרינן דטעמא דרבי שמעון כיון דלא חזיא נקבה לאשם לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

אימור דאמר רבי שמעון גבי נקבה לאשם

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected to Rabbi Yoḥanan: You can say that Rabbi Shimon expressed his opinion specifically with regard to one who consecrates a female for a guilt offering,

דליכא שם אשם על אמו אבל גבי נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אפילו רבי שמעון מודה

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.

ועוד הא שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון לעולתו עושה תמורה

In addition, another objection can be raised against the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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?

אמר ליה רבי יהושע סבר ליה כאידך תנא אליבא דרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון אף לעולתו אין עושה תמורה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

מתני׳ תמורת אשם ולד תמורה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיו לנדבה רבי אליעזר אומר ימותו ורבי אלעזר אומר יביא בדמיה עולות

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.

אשם שמתו בעליו ושכיפרו בעליו ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיו לנדבה רבי אליעזר אומר ימותו רבי אלעזר אומר יביא בדמיה עולה

These tanna’im 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.

והלא אף נדבה עולה היא ומה בין דברי רבי אלעזר לדברי חכמים אלא בזמן שהיא באה עולה סומך עליה ומביא נסכים ונסכיה משלו אם היה כהן עבודתה ועורה שלו

The mishna objects: But even according to the Rabbis, isn’t 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.

ובזמן שהיא נדבה אינו סומך עליה ואינו מביא עליה נסכים ונסכיה משל ציבור אף על פי שהוא כהן עבודתה ועורה משל אנשי משמר

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.

גמ׳ וצריכא

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.

דאי אשמעינן אשם בהא קאמר רבי אליעזר ימותו משום דגזר לאחר כפרה אטו לפני כפרה

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.

אבל גבי תמורת אשם ולד תמורתה אימא מודי להו לרבנן

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.

ואי אשמעינן התם בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל גבי אשם מודו ליה לרבי אליעזר צריכא

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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת לאחר כפרה אבל לפני כפרה דברי הכל הוא עצמו יקרב אשם

§ Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דאין אדם מתכפר בדבר הבא בעבירה ועוד התני רב חנניא לסיועי לרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ולד ראשון קרב ולד שני אינו קרב

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’t Rav Ḥananya 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.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת קודם כפרה אבל לאחר כפרה הוא עצמו קרב עולה

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Naḥman 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.

והתני רב חנניא לסיועי לרבי יהושע בן לוי קשיא

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥananya 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.

בעא מיניה רבי אבין בר חייא מרבי אבין בר כהנא הפריש נקבה לאשם בנה מהו שיקרב לעולה ותיפשוט ליה מדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר מודה רבי אלעזר לא שמיע ליה

§ Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya 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 Ḥanina, 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 Ḥiyya never heard that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

מאי אמר ליה בנה קרב עולה האי מאי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אלעזר אלא מפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אבל גבי אשם דליכא שם עולה על אמו אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה

The Gemara returns to the inquiry of Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya: What is the halakha? Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya: Its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering. Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya 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.

אמר ליה טעמא דרבי אלעזר לאו משום דשם עולה על אמו אלא משום דחזי להקרבה והא נמי חזי להקרבה

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.

איתיביה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם יביא בדמיהן עולה בדמיהן אין

Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya 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,