Chullin 23a — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: Actually, the beginning of the yellowing is a doubt, and in truth the verse does not come to exclude the beginning of the yellowing, since an exclusion is not needed for cases of doubt. Rather, the beginning of the yellowing is unfit because it is impossible to sacrifice something whose fitness is in doubt, and the verse is only an asmachta,

when the verse is necessary:

to exclude

the

one with which a sexual transgression was committed and

the

one used

as idolatry—for example, one bowed down to a bird—which are unfit as bird offerings.

It might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

concerning offerings, “

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

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

And the tannay of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Wherever “corruption” is stated, it refers only to a sexual transgression and idolatry.

A sexual transgression, as it is written

concerning the generation of the Flood, “

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

And the generation of the Flood sinned through sexual transgressions.

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

Therefore, the corruption concerning offerings is also a sexual transgression, namely, one with which a sexual transgression was committed and one upon which a sexual transgression was committed. And idolatry, namely, one used for idolatry.

And since both a blemish and corruption disqualify an offering, it might enter your mind to say,

Whatever a blemish disqualifies

in,

a sexual transgression and idolatry likewise disqualify in it; and whatever a blemish does not disqualify in, a sexual transgression and idolatry do not disqualify in it either. And these birds, since a blemish does not disqualify in them, as the Master said: “Unblemishedness and male status”

were stated

in

an

animal offering,

that the offering must be unblemished and male,

but unblemishedness and male status

are not stated

with regard to birds,

for even a blemished one and a female are fit in them,

I might say that a sexual transgression and idolatry likewise should not disqualify in them; it teaches us

the verse “from the turtledoves” and “from the sons of the dove” to disqualify also in birds a sexual transgression and idolatry, namely, one with which a sexual transgression was committed and one used for idolatry.

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

to bring

an animal burnt offering from the ram or from the sheep

whichever of them I wish,

and he brought a palges, what

is the ruling as to whether he has fulfilled his obligation?

A sheep during its first year is called a “sheep.” Once the first year has passed, during the first month within 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 question,

since

he said

that Rabbi Yohanan said that the palges

is a creature

in its own right

and is,

and it is neither a sheep nor a ram; therefore, he cannot fulfill his vow with it.

And from where do we know that Rabbi Yohanan holds that a palges is a creature in its own right?

For we learned

in Tractate Parah [1:3]:

If they sacrificed

the palges,

he brings with it the libations of a ram.

He brings with the palges the measure of the libations that they bring with an offering that is a ram, which is more than the libations that they bring with a sheep.

But it does not count for him toward his vow,

for if he vowed to bring only a ram, or 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 he brings the libations of a ram with a palges? For it is written in the section of libations, “

or

for a ram,” and we expound from the superfluous “or”

to include the palges

that its law is like that of a ram with regard to libations. And from here we have learned that Rabbi Yohanan’s view is that the palges is a creature in its own right. For if he held that the palges is a doubt—whether it is a ram or a sheep—there would have been no need for a verse to include the palges, so that he should bring libations with it like those of a ram. For even without the verse, I would say that since one must entertain the possibility that the palges is a ram or a sheep, one must bring with it the greater measure of the libations of the two, namely, the libations of a ram. Rather, it is certain that Rabbi Yohanan held that the palges is a creature in its own right, and therefore a verse is needed to include it, so that its libations should be like those of a ram.