תמורה יט

תמורה יט

אֲבָל גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרַת וְלַד אָשָׁם, דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, מוֹדֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דִּבְדָמָיו אִין הוּא עַצְמוֹ לָא קָרֵב.

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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְפִסְחוֹ — תִּרְעֶה עַד (שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב) [שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב], וְתִמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ פֶּסַח. יָלְדָה — יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו פֶּסַח.

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.

נִשְׁתַּיְּירָה אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, תִּרְעֶה עַד (שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב) [שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב], וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה, יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו שְׁלָמִים. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים.

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.

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם שְׁלָמִים עַל אִמּוֹ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ (רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר) [רָבָא]: ״אַחַר הַפֶּסַח״ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, דְּמוֹתַר פֶּסַח גּוּפֵיהּ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים.

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.

אִי הָכִי, נִיפְלוֹג נָמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי.

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.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לָא פְּלִיג מִידֵּי, דִּגְמִירִי לִמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר הוֹלֵךְ — הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ; לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח, דְּמוֹתָר קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים — וָלָד נָמֵי קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים.

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.

אֲבָל לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח, אִימֵּיהּ לְמַאי אַקְדְּשַׁהּ? לִדְמֵי פֶסַח, וָלָד נָמֵי לִדְמֵי פֶסַח.

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.

מֵתִיב רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן מִדְּאִימֵּיהּ לִדְמֵי, וָלָד נָמֵי לִדְמֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לַפֶּסַח — הִיא וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם פֶּסַח. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב פֶּסַח.

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.

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּאִימֵּיהּ לִדְמֵי, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב פֶּסַח, וְלָא מוֹקְמִינַן לֵיהּ בְּאִימֵּיהּ!

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.

אָמַר רָבִינָא: בְּמַפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, דְּעוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, וְאִמּוֹ הִיא דְּלָא קָדְשָׁה קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, אֲבָל הִיא קָדְשָׁה.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּבִבְהֵמָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״הִיא וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּמַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם דְּאֵין בְּנָהּ קָרֵב אָשָׁם. פְּשִׁיטָא! עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי מַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם אָשָׁם עַל אִמּוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מוֹדֶה דְּלֹא קָרֵב אָשָׁם!

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.

אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּשֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזֵי וָלָד לְהַקְרָבָה, וְהַאי נָמֵי הָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין בְּנָהּ קָרֵב אָשָׁם, נַישְׁמְעִינַן דְּאֵין בְּנָהּ קָרֵב עוֹלָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאָשָׁם!

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.

אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עוֹלָה הוּא דְּלָא קָרְבָה, דְּלָא אַקְדְּשַׁהּ לְאִמַּהּ (קְדוּשָּׁה עוּבָּרָהּ) [קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָה], אֲבָל אָשָׁם — [כֵּיוָן דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ לְאִימֵּיהּ לְאָשָׁם] — אֵימָא: וָלָד קָרֵב אָשָׁם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם, תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב, וְתִימָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אָשָׁם. וְאִם קָרַב אֲשָׁמוֹ, יִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תִּימָּכֵר שֶׁלֹּא בְּמוּם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ וּלְמָה לִי תִּסְתָּאֵב? תִּימָּכֵר! כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְמִילְּתָא — הַיְינוּ מוּמָא!

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: הַיְינוּ טַעַם דְּאָמְרִינַן, מִיגּוֹ דְּנָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים — נָחֲתָא נָמֵי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף. אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו — קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

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.

אִיתְּמַר: הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו, רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף. וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא לִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא, מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תִּימָּכֵר שֶׁלֹּא בְּמוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִיגּוֹ דְּנָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, תֵּיחוֹת לֵיהּ נָמֵי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף!

§ 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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ — לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, דְּתַנְיָא: אָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וֶהֱבִיאוֹ בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם וֶהֱבִיאוֹ בֶּן שָׁנָה — כְּשֵׁירָה, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עַצְמָן אֵינָן קְדוֹשִׁין.

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.

וַהֲרֵי מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּלָא חֲזֵי, וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּקָדוֹשׁ, שָׁאנֵי מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דַּחֲזֵי לִמְחַר.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אָשָׁם בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם וֶהֱבִיאוֹ בֶּן שָׁנָה, הָא חֲזֵי לְשָׁנָה, אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, דְּיָלֵיף לֵיהּ מִבְּכוֹר.

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.

כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּבְכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, אַף מְחוּסַּר זְמַן קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָתוֹ

§ 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