Shekalim 12b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: He said,

Rav Hezekiah said in the name of Rav Hisda: It will be explained

[We shall establish the Mishna] as being the case

that the animals developed blemishes

[the Gra’s version: the animals developed blemishes, and it was found that they were unfit for the altar],

and

afterward

he redeemed them.

And if so, certainly they are permitted for benefit. For it is impossible that they should be consecrated to the altar, since they are unfit for it.

Rabbi Yose said in the name of

Rav Hisda:

Certainly, this is indeed so, as we rejected: it is speaking of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that were redeemed after they developed blemishes,

and the Mishna says so

[and this itself is proved from this Mishna].

For it was taught concerning altar-consecrated property that they redeemed:

Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.

And certainly it is speaking of animals that developed blemishes, for if not, they have no redemption. For unblemished altar-consecrated animals are not redeemed.

And likewise, that which it says concerning consecrated property for Temple maintenance that was redeemed must also be established as referring to property redeemed after it developed blemishes, analogous to altar-consecrated property.

Rabbi Hezekiah said in the name of Rabbi Yose

also said:

Consecrated property for Temple maintenance that he redeemed

when they were

unblemished became unconsecrated.

And he proved it:

If you say

[if you say]

that they did not become unconsecrated,

then they would forever remain in the sanctity of consecrated property for Temple maintenance; and how, then, did we learn in the Mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says that one who consecrates his property—the males among them are sold for the needs of burnt-offerings? Surely they forever remain in the sanctity of consecrated property for Temple maintenance—

and how can altar-consecrated property take effect upon consecrated property for Temple maintenance?

Rather, it is proved that they leave the sanctity of consecrated property for Temple maintenance for the sanctity of the altar. And likewise, it is possible to remove them from the sanctity of consecrated property for Temple maintenance to unconsecrated status.

One who consecrates

blemished animals

for the altar, although he transgressed a prohibition, nevertheless the designation

of altar-consecrated property takes effect upon them.

And the Gemara asks:

For what matter

[for what purpose]?

That is to say, what practical difference is there that the sanctity of the altar takes effect upon them, since they are unfit for an offering?

And the Gemara answers:

It will be explained as referring to shearing and labor.

For when they are redeemed, their law will be like that of altar-consecrated property in which a blemish occurred: although they are redeemed, they are nevertheless forbidden for shearing and labor. And here too, those blemished animals that he consecrated for the altar are forbidden for shearing and labor after their redemption.

He set apart

[consecrated]

a female for his burnt-offering, his Paschal-offering, or his guilt-offering

[either for this one or for that one]. Although the female is not valid for them, for all these come only from a male, nevertheless it is consecrated in this respect: it

effects substitution.

For if he says concerning another animal, “Let this be a substitute for this one,” sanctity also takes effect upon it.

Rabbi Shimon

distinguishes and

says:

Only if he consecrated a female

for his burnt-offering

is it

effective for substitution.

But if he consecrated it

for his Paschal-offering or his guilt-offering—

it is not effective for substitution,

Rabbi Shimon ben Judah said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether he consecrated it

Whether he consecrated it

for his burnt-offering or whether he consecrated it

for his

for his Paschal-offering or his guilt-offering—

it is not effective for substitution.

And Rabbi Yohanan explains the reason of all of them:

Rabbi Yohanan said: The reason of Rabbi Shimon

[according to the first tanna, who says that one who consecrates a female for his burnt-offering effects substitution] is:

For we find a female among birds that is

that is

fit to come as a burnt-offering. For only with an animal is there a distinction between male and female, but not with a bird. And since the designation “burnt-offering” applies also to a female, therefore the designation of a burnt-offering takes effect upon a female animal with regard to its effecting substitution.

For the distinction between male and female applies only to animals, not to birds. Since the designation “burnt-offering” applies also to a female bird, the designation of a burnt-offering takes effect upon a female animal to the extent that it effects substitution.

This is not so with a Paschal-offering and a guilt-offering, for there is no designation whatsoever of a Paschal-offering or a guilt-offering in a female.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Judah

who says that Rabbi Shimon’s view is that even one who consecrates a female for a burnt-offering does not effect substitution is:

For we find that Rabbi Shimon held that even in the very species from which the offering comes—for example, a male brought as a guilt-offering—but one brought it not according to its age, as follows, sanctity does not take effect upon it.

And we can learn this by a kal va-chomer:

If

with regard to a

species

that he exchanged

for its own species,

and only changed its age,

he

[Rabbi Shimon]

disagrees with him

[with the first tanna] and holds that the consecration does not take effect,

all the more so

if he exchanged

one species for a species that is not its own,

bringing a female for a burnt-offering in place of a male, certainly he disagrees with him and holds that it is not consecrated.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the “species for its own species” with which he disagrees?

As in this teaching

[like that which we learned]: If one was obligated to bring a

guilt-offering,

which comes from a lamb

one year old

[such as the guilt-offering of a nazirite or of one afflicted with leprosy],

and brought

in its place a ram

two years old; or if he was obligated to bring a guilt-offering

Or if one was obligated to bring a guilt-offering

two years old

[such as a guilt-offering for robbery, misuse of consecrated property, or a betrothed maidservant]

and brought

a lamb

one year old—

it is an offering

fit.

It is consecrated,

but it does not discharge the owners’ obligation

[the Gra’s version: and they must bring another offering].

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees

and says: They are not consecrated at all,

since he changed the age of the offering.

And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: From these words of Rabbi Shimon—that even when he changed only the age, within the very same species, the offering was not consecrated—Rabbi Shimon ben Judah learned that Rabbi Shimon’s view is that, all the more so, when he changed the species of the offering, no sanctity takes effect upon it at all, and therefore it does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Joshua—

both said one thing,

that any animal consecrated for an offering for which it is unfit is not consecrated with sanctity of the body.

Just as

[like]

Rabbi Joshua said

in our Mishna [as the Gemara will prove shortly]: One who consecrates

a female for a burnt-offering—

he did not consecrate it

with sanctity of the body,

but with monetary consecration.

So Rabbi Shimon said

in the statement above: One who consecrates

a female for a burnt-offering—

he consecrated it only with monetary consecration,

and therefore it does not effect substitution.

And Rabbi Yohanan proves that Rabbi Joshua’s view is that one who consecrates a female for a burnt-offering does not cause sanctity of the body to take effect upon it:

For Rabbi Joshua said in the Mishna: One who consecrates his property—the things fit for the altar are consecrated for the altar. And Rabbi Joshua says that if females were included among his property, they are sold as females for the needs of peace-offerings, and with their value he brings burnt-offerings.

And the reason that he brings specifically burnt-offerings with their value is that presumably he intended to consecrate them for a burnt-offering, since it is entirely for God.

And

if you say,

and if you say that one who consecrates a female for his burnt-offering

consecrated it with sanctity of the body, if so, why does monetary sanctity take effect upon the females, to be sold for peace-offerings and to bring burnt-offerings with their value?

Let us say that the sanctity of a burnt-offering should take effect upon them, as it does when one explicitly consecrates a female for his burnt-offering, and that the females among his property should

Let us say that the sanctity of a burnt-offering should take effect upon them, just as when one explicitly consecrates a female for his burnt-offering, and those females among his property should

be left to graze until they become unfit, and a blemish occurs in them, and they are redeemed. For it is impossible to redeem them as they are, since sanctity of the body has taken effect upon them.

until they become blemished, acquire a defect, and are redeemed. For they cannot be redeemed as they are, since bodily sanctity has taken effect upon them. Rather, it is evident that Rabbi Yehoshua held like Rabbi Shimon: one who consecrates a female for his burnt-offering does not confer bodily sanctity upon it, but only monetary sanctity.

Rather, it is proved that Rabbi Joshua held like Rabbi Shimon: when one consecrates a female for his burnt-offering, sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it, but only monetary sanctity.

There are found three views concerning the law of one who sets apart a female for an offering that comes only from a male:

A. The view of the first tanna is that whether he consecrated it for a burnt-offering, a Paschal-offering, or a guilt-offering, it is consecrated with sanctity of the body and effects substitution.

B. The view of Rabbi Shimon is that if he consecrated it for a burnt-offering, it effects substitution, but if he consecrated it for a Paschal-offering or for a guilt-offering, it does not effect substitution.

C. And the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Judah concerning Rabbi Shimon is that whether he consecrated it for a burnt-offering or whether he consecrated it for a Paschal-offering or a guilt-offering, it is not consecrated with sanctity of the body, and therefore it does not effect substitution.

And Rabbi came to disagree and introduce a fourth view.

Rabbi said: No

[according to the version of the Korban ha-Edah]

I see the words of Rabbi Shimon

concerning one who consecrates a female for an offering

of Passover.

For Rabbi Shimon says that it is not consecrated, whereas I say that it is consecrated.

For

behold,

the surplus

that remains from what was consecrated in the name of a

Paschal-offering

[for example, he consecrated an offering for his Paschal-offering and it was lost, he set another apart in its place, and afterward the first was found]—its law is that it

comes

and is sacrificed

as a peace-offering.

And since the designation of a peace-offering applies to the Paschal-offering, and a peace-offering comes even from a female, therefore sanctity of the body also takes effect upon the female that he set apart for a Paschal-offering. And therefore it effects substitution.

And the Gemara asks:

And let

Rabbi also

say: “I do not see the words of Rabbi Shimon concerning a guilt-offering.”

For he holds that one who consecrates a female for a guilt-offering does not consecrate it, whereas according to my words it is indeed consecrated for the stated reason:

For

behold,

the surplus

from what was consecrated for an

guilt-offering, its law, by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, is that it is sacrificed and

by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, is destined to be offered and

comes as a burnt-offering.

And concerning a burnt-offering Rabbi Shimon said that one who consecrates a female for a burnt-offering causes sanctity of the body to take effect upon it. If so, when one consecrates a female for a guilt-offering, sanctity of the body should likewise take effect upon it, since it too has the designation “burnt-offering” if it becomes the “surplus of a guilt-offering,” and with a burnt-offering sanctity of the body takes effect even upon a female.

Rabbi Avin said:

This is not comparable to that. And a guilt-offering differs from a Paschal-offering.

For

if

we find that he

consecrated

an animal for an offering

of Passover

that

comes as a peace-offering,

when it remains after Passover, then

its body—

the offering itself that he consecrated for Passover—is itself

sacrificed as a peace-offering.

Therefore, even one who consecrates a female for a Paschal-offering causes it to be consecrated, since with a Paschal-offering we find that the body of the offering can be sacrificed as a peace-offering.

But concerning a guilt-offering, although we find that

if he consecrated

an animal for a

guilt-offering

and it became surplus, the surplus

comes as a burnt-offering, its body does not

of the guilt-offering itself

come

as a

burnt-offering!

Rather, only from its monetary value [after it developed a blemish] do they bring a burnt-offering.

And therefore it is not considered on this account that the designation “burnt-offering” applies to the guilt-offering.

What is it, then?

What is the basis of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon concerning one who consecrates a male for a guilt-offering or a Paschal-offering, whether it is consecrated with sanctity of the body?

The one

[Rabbi Shimon]

said:

Anyone who consecrates an animal for an offering for which it is unfit did not consecrate it with sanctity of the body, but it is—

monetary consecration

alone that he

consecrated.

And the other

[the first tanna]

said:

Although he consecrated something unfit for this offering, nevertheless we say:

He consecrated the sanctity of its body.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

This is

the reason of Rabbi Joshua,

who said in the Mishna that one who consecrates his property sells everything fit for the altar, and with their value brings burnt-offerings:

For it is written [in Leviticus 22]:

“Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: Any man, any man of the house of Israel

and of the stranger in Israel, who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their freewill offerings, which they bring to the Lord as a burnt-offering. For your acceptance, an unblemished male, among cattle, among sheep, and among goats.”

From what is written, “for all their vows and for all their freewill offerings, which they bring to the Lord as a burnt-offering,” it follows that everything a person vows—

all comes as a burnt-offering!

And from here: everything that a person consecrates to the Lord without specification, without stating that it is for a burnt-offering, even if it is not itself fit for a burnt-offering, is sold, and its value is applied to a burnt-offering.

And if you challenge: Is it not written in this verse

“For your acceptance”—

“an unblemished male,”

and seemingly one should say that specifically from males fit for a burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering?

From where

that

even

from

the females

they shall bring, with their value, a burnt-offering?

The verse says: “For your acceptance, an unblemished male,

из крупного скота»

among cattle.”

And from the word “among cattle,” which is superfluous, we derive:

to include the females!

For even from the females he shall bring a burnt-offering, with their value.

Rabbi Isaac son of Rabbi Eliezer asked:

Behold,

it is written “male,”

which implies that when one consecrates a female, they do not bring a burnt-offering with its value.

And

even so,

you say: “Among cattle”—

to include the females,

that they shall bring a burnt-offering with their value.

And if so, one may say

likewise

[similarly]: even

since it is written

in this verse

“unblemished,”

which implies specifically unblemished, but when one consecrates his property and there is a blemished animal among it, they should not bring a burnt-offering with its value.

Even so,

you say

[you have grounds to say and expound] from that which is written

“among cattle”—

to include

one who consecrates

blemished animals,

that they shall bring burnt-offerings with their value.

And what is between them!?

That is to say, why did you see fit to expound the superfluous word “among cattle” to include one who consecrates females, and not to include one who consecrates blemished animals?

Rav said

as an answer:

The weavers’ rod

[the loom rod that separates the warp threads in order to insert the weft thread between them]

is between them.

That is to say, there is a noticeable difference between one who consecrates females and one who consecrates blemished animals.

For the females are fit for the altar in other offerings, and therefore we say that his intention was that offerings should come from their value.

This is not so with blemished animals, which are unfit for the altar anywhere; it is logical that he did not intend to consecrate them for the altar at all.

We learned in the Mishna: “One who consecrates his property, and among them were things fit with regard to the altar—wines, oils, and birds,

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that species

and with their value he brings burnt-offerings.”

We see that Rabbi Eliezer held that whenever a person consecrates something fit for the altar, his intention is that it be applied to a burnt-offering.

And if so, it is difficult: why are the birds themselves not sacrificed as a burnt-offering?

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

This is

the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

because it is written:

“Speak to Aaron and to his sons ...

which they bring to the Lord, as a burnt-offering.”

From here we derived above that whatever a person consecrates without specification, something fit for the altar—

all comes as a burnt-offering.

And since it is written

“For your acceptance”—

“an unblemished male,”

there would be room to say:

One might have thought that even

if he consecrated

birds,

they should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.

The verse says: “Among cattle”!

And from here it follows that specifically where “among cattle” is stated, everything that one consecrates without specification goes to a burnt-offering,

but not birds.

Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Bun bar Hiyya were sitting and saying

[they were sitting and raised a difficulty and said]: How can we say here that birds that are themselves fit for the altar are sold, and with their value they bring a burnt-offering?

But

there

[there]

Rabbi Yohanan said,

to explain

the reason of Rabbi Shimon,

concerning his saying that one who consecrates a female for his burnt-offering consecrated it with sanctity of the body, although it is not itself fit for a burnt-offering, for the reason:

for

the designation “burnt-offering” takes effect upon a

female, for

behold,

with a bird

it is

fit to come as a burnt-offering.

And we see that even where the thing is not fit for a burnt-offering, nevertheless sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, since the designation “burnt-offering” applies to it.

And

if so, how

did he say here

[the colleagues in the name of Rabbi Yohanan; see the Gra]

thus

[so], that it is possible to sell the birds that he consecrated, and sanctity of the body does not take effect upon them?