Shekalim 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Resolve it

[we should establish the Mishna] as referring to a case

where they became blemished

[the version of the Gra: the animals became blemished, and it was found that they were unfit for the altar],

and

afterward

he redeemed them.

If so, they are certainly permitted for benefit, since it is impossible for them to be consecrated to the altar, as they are unfit for it.

Rabbi Yose said in the name of

Rav Ḥisda:

Certainly, this is indeed the case, as we rejected: the animals dedicated for the repair of the Temple were redeemed after they became blemished,

and the Mishna itself says so

[and this very Mishna proves it].

For it was taught concerning offerings of the altar that were redeemed:

“Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.”

Certainly, this refers to animals that became blemished, since otherwise they cannot be redeemed. For unblemished offerings of the altar cannot be redeemed.

Likewise, when it says concerning offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple that they were redeemed, it must also be established that they were redeemed after they became blemished, analogous to offerings of the altar.

Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yose

also said: Offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple,

which one redeemed

when they were

unblemished, became ordinary property.

And he proved this:

If you should say

[that if you say]

that they did not become ordinary property,

then they would remain forever in the sanctity of offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple. How, then, did we learn in the Mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says that one who consecrates his property sells the males among them for the needs of burnt-offerings? Surely they would forever remain in the sanctity of offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple;

and how can the sanctity of offerings of the altar take effect upon offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple?

Rather, it necessarily follows that they leave the sanctity of offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple and enter the sanctity of offerings of the altar. Likewise, it is possible to remove them from the sanctity of offerings dedicated for the repair of the Temple and make them ordinary property.

One who consecrates

blemished animals

to the altar, although he has violated a prohibition, nevertheless the designation

“offerings of the altar” takes effect upon them.

The Gemara challenges this:

For what purpose

[for what matter]?

That is, what practical difference is there in the sanctity of offerings of the altar taking effect upon them, since they are unfit for an offering?

The Gemara answers:

Resolve it as referring to shearing and labor.

When they are redeemed, their law will be like that of offerings of the altar that became blemished: although they are redeemed, they nevertheless remain forbidden for shearing and labor. Likewise, those blemished animals that one consecrated to the altar are forbidden for shearing and labor after their redemption.

If one set aside

[consecrated]

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

[whether for one or another of these], although a female is not fit for these offerings, all of which come only from males, nevertheless it is consecrated in this respect: it

effects substitution.

If he says of another animal, “This shall be a substitute for this one,” sanctity takes effect upon the other animal as well.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and

says:

Only if one consecrated a female

for his burnt-offering

does it

effect substitution.

But if he consecrated it

for his Paschal-offering or guilt-offering, it

does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

Whether he consecrated it

for his burnt-offering or whether he consecrated it

for his

Paschal-offering or guilt-offering, it

does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the rationale of all the opinions:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The rationale 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

fit to be brought as a burnt-offering.

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, since the designation of a Paschal-offering or guilt-offering does not apply at all to a female.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The rationale of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda,

who says that according to Rabbi Shimon, even one who consecrates a female for a burnt-offering does not effect substitution, is:

We find that Rabbi Shimon held that even when the animal belongs to the very species from which the offering comes—for example, a male brought as a guilt-offering—but it was brought not according to the required age, as follows—sanctity does not take effect upon it.

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

If

with regard to a

species

that was exchanged

for its own species,

and only its age was changed,

he

[Rabbi Shimon]

disagrees with him

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

all the more so

if he exchanged

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

The Gemara explains:

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

As in this teaching

[as in the following that we learned]: If one was obligated to bring a

guilt-offering

that comes from a lamb

one year old

[such as the guilt-offering of a nazirite or of a leper],

and he brought

in its place a ram

two years old.

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 intercourse with a designated maidservant]

and he brought

a lamb

one year old—this offering is

a

valid offering.

It is consecrated,

but it does not fulfill the owner’s obligation,

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

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees

and says: They are not consecrated at all,

since he changed the required age of the offering.

This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From these words of Rabbi Shimon—that even changing only the age, within the same species, prevents the offering from becoming consecrated—Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda inferred that Rabbi Shimon holds that, all the more so, if one changed the species of the offering, no sanctity takes effect upon it at all; therefore, it does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua—

both stated the same thing,

that any animal consecrated for an offering for which it is unfit does not acquire bodily sanctity.

Just as

[as]

Rabbi Yehoshua said

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

a female for a burnt-offering—

it does not acquire

bodily sanctity,

but only monetary sanctity.

So Rabbi Shimon said

in the earlier statement: One who consecrates

a female for a burnt-offering—

it acquires only monetary sanctity,

and therefore it does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Yoḥanan proves that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one who consecrates a female for a burnt-offering does not confer bodily sanctity upon it:

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

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

And

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

does so

with bodily sanctity, why does monetary sanctity take effect upon the females, so that they are sold for peace-offerings and burnt-offerings are brought with their proceeds?

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

graze

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.

There are thus three opinions regarding one who sets aside a female for an offering that comes only from a male:

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

B. The opinion 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 a guilt-offering, it does not effect substitution.

C. The opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, according to 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 does not acquire bodily sanctity and therefore does not effect substitution.

Rabbi now comes to disagree and introduce a fourth opinion.

Rabbi said: I do not

[according to the version of Korban HaEdah]

see the words of Rabbi Shimon

with regard to one who consecrates a female for a

Paschal

offering. Rabbi Shimon says that it does not become consecrated, whereas I say that it does become consecrated.

For

the

surplus

that remains from what was consecrated as a

Paschal

offering

[for example, one consecrated an offering for his Paschal-offering and it was lost, he set aside another in its place, and then the first was found] is destined to

come

and be offered

as a peace-offering.

Since the designation of a peace-offering takes effect upon the Paschal-offering, and a peace-offering may come even from a female, bodily sanctity likewise takes effect upon the female that he set aside as a Paschal-offering. Therefore, it effects substitution.

The Gemara challenges this:

Let Rabbi

also say:

“I do not see the words of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a guilt-offering.”

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

For

the

surplus

from what was consecrated as a

guilt-offering,

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 confers bodily sanctity upon it. If so, when one consecrates a female for a guilt-offering, bodily sanctity should likewise take effect upon it, since the designation “burnt-offering” also applies to it when it becomes “surplus of a guilt-offering,” and with regard to a burnt-offering bodily sanctity takes effect even upon a female.

Rabbi Avin said:

This is not analogous to that; a guilt-offering differs from a Paschal-offering.

For

if

we find that one

consecrated

an animal for a

Paschal

offering, which

comes as a peace-offering

when it remains after Passover, then

the body

of the offering itself that he consecrated for a Paschal-offering is itself

offered as a peace-offering.

Therefore, even when one consecrates a female for a Paschal-offering, it becomes consecrated, since with regard to a Paschal-offering we find that the body of the offering may itself be offered as a peace-offering.

But with regard to a guilt-offering, although we find that

if one consecrated

an animal for a

guilt-offering

and it became surplus, the surplus

comes as a burnt-offering, the body does not

of the guilt-offering itself

come as an

offering

burnt-offering!

Rather, only from its monetary value [after it becomes blemished] is a burnt-offering brought.

Therefore, this does not establish that the designation “burnt-offering” takes effect upon a guilt-offering.

What is the matter, then? What is the basis of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon regarding one who consecrates a male for a guilt-offering or a Paschal-offering, as to whether it acquires bodily sanctity?

That one

[Rabbi Shimon]

said: Whoever consecrates an animal for an offering for which it is unfit has not consecrated it with bodily sanctity; rather,

monetary sanctity

alone is what

he consecrated.

And that one

[the first tanna]

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

He consecrated its body as an offering.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

This is

the rationale of Rabbi Yehoshua,

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

As 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 of the house of Israel

and of the strangers in Israel who brings his offering for all his vows and for all his 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

is brought as a burnt-offering!

From here we learn that anything a person consecrates to the Lord without specification, without stating that it is for a burnt-offering—even if the item itself is unfit for a burnt-offering—is sold, and its value is used for a burnt-offering.

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

“For your acceptance—

an unblemished male,”

which apparently means that a burnt-offering is brought specifically from males fit for a burnt-offering?

From where

do we know that

even

from

females

a burnt-offering is brought, through their proceeds?

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

among cattle.”

From the superfluous word “among cattle,” we derive:

to include females!

A burnt-offering is brought even from females, through their proceeds.

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Rabbi Eliezer asked:

But

it is written, “male,”

which implies that when one consecrates a female, a burnt-offering is not brought from its proceeds.

And

nevertheless,

you say: “among cattle”—

to include females,

so that a burnt-offering is brought from their proceeds.

If so, one can likewise say

in the same manner

[likewise]: Although

it is written

in this verse

“unblemished,”

which implies specifically an unblemished animal, whereas when one consecrates his property and it includes a blemished animal, a burnt-offering should not be brought from its value,

nevertheless,

you say

[you may say and derive] from what is written,

“among cattle”—

to include one who consecrates

blemished animals,

so that burnt-offerings are brought from their proceeds.

And what is the difference between them!?

That is, why did you interpret the superfluous word “among cattle” as including one who consecrates females, rather than as including one who consecrates blemished animals?

Rav said

in response:

“The weaver’s rod”

[the wooden tool of weavers that separates the warp threads so that the weft thread can be inserted between them] is

between them.

That is, there is a clear distinction between one who consecrates females and one who consecrates blemished animals.

Females are fit for the altar for other offerings, and therefore we say that his intention was that offerings should be brought from their proceeds.

This is not so with blemished animals, which are unfit for the altar in every context; it is reasonable to assume 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 it were items fit for the altar, wines, oils, and birds,

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

and burnt-offerings are brought from their proceeds.”

We see that Rabbi Eliezer holds that whenever a person consecrates an item fit for the altar, his intention is that it be used for a burnt-offering.

If so, it is difficult: Why are the birds themselves not offered as burnt-offerings?

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: This is

the rationale 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 previously derived that anything a person consecrates without specification, if it is fit for the altar,

is all brought as a burnt-offering.

But 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 offered as burnt-offerings.

The verse therefore states: “Among cattle”!

From here it follows that specifically where “among cattle” applies, everything one consecrates without specification is for a burnt-offering,

but not in the case of birds.

Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Bun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying

[they were sitting, raised this difficulty, and said]: How can we say here that birds that are themselves fit for the altar are sold, and a burnt-offering is brought from their proceeds?

But

there

[in that other context]

Rabbi Yoḥanan said,

to explain

the rationale of Rabbi Shimon,

when he said that one who consecrates a female for his burnt-offering confers bodily sanctity upon it, despite the fact that it is itself unfit for a burnt-offering, for the reason that

since the designation “burnt-offering” takes effect upon a

female, for

it is

fit among birds

to be

brought as a burnt-offering.

We see that even where an item is unfit for a burnt-offering, bodily sanctity nevertheless takes effect upon it, since the designation “burnt-offering” applies to it.

And

if so, how

did they say here

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

so,

that it is possible to sell the birds he consecrated, and bodily sanctity does not take effect upon them?

[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?