Chullin 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: Actually, the beginning of the yellowing is indeed a case of uncertainty, and the verse truly does not come to exclude the beginning of the yellowing, since no exclusion is needed for cases of uncertainty. Rather, the beginning of the yellowing is disqualified because it is impossible to offer something whose fitness is uncertain, and the verse is merely an asmachta.

When the verse is needed:

To exclude

the

animal that copulated with a person and

the

animal that was worshipped

as an object of idolatry—for example, one that was bowed down to—that are disqualified as bird offerings.

One might have thought, since it is written

with regard to offerings, “

For their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them

they shall not be accepted for you,” that we have learned that two things disqualify offerings: corruption and a blemish. And what is this corruption?

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Wherever the term “corruption” is stated, it refers only to sexual immorality or idolatry.

Sexual immorality, as it is written

regarding the generation of the Flood: “

For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.”

And the generation of the Flood sinned through sexual immorality.

Idolatry, as it is written: “Lest you corrupt yourselves and make for yourselves a graven image.”

Therefore, the corruption mentioned with regard to offerings also refers to sexual immorality, namely, an animal that copulated with a person or an animal with which a person copulated; and to idolatry, namely, an animal that was worshipped.

And since both a blemish and corruption disqualify an offering, one might have thought:

Anything with regard to which a blemish disqualifies

also

sexual immorality and idolatry disqualify; and anything with regard to which a blemish does not disqualify, sexual immorality and idolatry do not disqualify. And as for these birds, since a blemish does not disqualify them, as the Master said: “The requirements of perfection and male sex”

were stated

in

the

animal offering,

meaning that the offering must be unblemished and male,

but the requirements of perfection and male sex

were not stated

with regard to birds,

since even a blemished bird and a female bird are fit for them,

one might say that sexual immorality and idolatry likewise do not disqualify them. The verse teaches us otherwise

through the verses “from the turtledoves” and “from the young pigeons,” which disqualify birds as well when they are involved in sexual immorality or idolatry, namely, an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was worshipped.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: If one says: It is incumbent upon me

to bring

an animal burnt-offering from a ram or from a sheep

whichever of them I wish,

and he brought a palges, what is the halakha

—has he fulfilled his obligation?

A sheep during its first year is called a “sheep.” Once the first year has passed, during the first month of its second year, it is called a palges. After that, it is called a “ram” forever.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, you need not raise the dilemma,

since

he said

that the palges

is a distinct entity

in its own right

and is,

neither a sheep nor a ram; therefore, one cannot fulfill his vow with it.

And from where do we know that Rabbi Yohanan holds that a palges is a distinct entity?

As we learned

in tractate Para [1:3]:

If they offered

the palges,

he brings with it the libations of a ram.

He brings with the palges the measure of libations brought with an offering that is a ram, which is greater than the libations brought with a sheep.

But it does not count toward the fulfillment of his vow,

for if he vowed to bring only a ram, or if he vowed to bring only a sheep, he does not fulfill his obligation with a palges. Rather, he must bring a ram or a sheep, according to what he vowed.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

From where do we know that one brings the libations of a ram with a palges? It is written in the passage concerning libations: “

or

for a ram,” and we derive from the apparently superfluous word “or”

that a palges is included,

and that its law with regard to libations is like that of a ram. From this we learn that Rabbi Yohanan holds that a palges is a distinct creature. For if he held that a palges is uncertainly either a ram or a sheep, there would be no need for a verse to include a palges and require that the libations brought with it be those of a ram. Even without the verse, one would say that since there is uncertainty whether the palges is a ram or a sheep, one must bring with it the larger amount of libations of the two, namely, the libations of a ram. Rather, it is certain that Rabbi Yohanan holds that a palges is a distinct creature in its own right; therefore, a verse is needed to include it and establish that its libations are like those of a ram.