Temurah 17b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Samuel can say to you: Rabbi Elazar holds that

wherever it is not fit for its body,

any animal that is not fit to be sacrificed,

the sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it.

But the Sages disagree with him, and hold that the sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, and Samuel holds like them.

The Gemara cites a Mishna [below, 30b] to raise a difficulty against Samuel.

We learned: All consecrated animals that became tereifa,

after their consecration—

one does not redeem them, since one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs,

rather, they require death and burial in their sanctity.

And we infer:

the reason,

the entire reason that they are consecrated is because of

“that they became” tereifa after they were consecrated,

a tereifa after they had already been consecrated;

but here,

but if they

were

tereifa

initially,

before their consecration—the sanctity of the body did not take effect upon them at all, and

one redeems them—

Thus, the sanctity of the body did not take effect upon it, and this is difficult for Samuel?

And we answer

perhaps,

it is possible to say that

this tanna

holds in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar, that

wherever it is not fit for its body—

the sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it.

And the Sages disagree with him and hold that the sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, and Samuel holds like them.

We shall return to you, chapter “There Is among the Sacrifices.”

After the matter of the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a sin-offering was explained in the previous chapter, the Mishna in this chapter explains the laws of the offspring and substitutes of the other offerings.

Mishna:

These are sacred offerings whose offspring and substitutes -

are like them.

For their offspring and substitutes are equal in their law and in their sanctity to the sacred offerings themselves:

The offspring of a peace-offering, and their substitutes.

Their offspring

of a peace-offering or of a substitute of a peace-offering.

And likewise

the offspring of their offspring until the end of the entire world—behold, they are peace-offerings,

for all the laws of peace-offerings.

And they require laying on of hands, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh

as peace-offerings.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the wording of the Mishna:

Since the tanna

who already taught in the Mishna:

their offspring

of peace-offerings,

and

likewise

the offspring of their offspring,

that they are sacrificed as peace-offerings like the peace-offerings themselves, if so, this that the tanna returned and added

“until the end of the entire world” -

why do I need it?

And the Gemara explains:

Our tanna

the tanna of our Mishna,

heard it [

heard]

from Rabbi Eliezer, who says

in the following Mishna:

The offspring of a peace-offering may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering,

but it is placed in a cell and dies, as will be explained there.

And

therefore

our tanna said to him: It is not necessary concerning their offspring, for I do not concede to you,

for I do not concede concerning it to your words, but rather it is sacrificed as a peace-offering,

but even until the end of the world,

when there is greater reason to be concerned for your reasoning that it should not be sacrificed as a peace-offering [as will be explained below], nevertheless,

I do not concede to you,

and I hold that forever they are peace-offerings.

We learned in our Mishna: They are peace-offerings, and they require laying on of hands, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh.

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

learned?

For the Sages taught:

The Torah said in the section of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3]: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings, if he brings it from cattle, whether male or female, he shall bring it unblemished before the Lord.”

And since the word “cattle” includes both male and female,

this that the Torah added and said “whether male or female” comes to teach: “

Male” -

to include the offspring,

that was born from an animal that is a peace-offering, so that it too is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

And the beraita asks: Why do I need to derive the law of the offspring from the surplus of the word “male”?

Is it not a logical inference,

for its law can be learned by a

kal va-chomer

from a peace-offering:

which is not

the growth of consecrated property,

and nevertheless it is

sacrificed,

as will be explained later in the beraita.

The offspring

of peace-offerings,

which

is

the growth of consecrated property—is it not logical that it should be sacrificed!

GriZ wrote that the beraita’s discussion concerning the offspring is about its very sanctity and about its sacrifice.

But the inference can be refuted:

What is true of a substitute,

which is more stringent than the offspring of a peace-offering,

for it applies

the sanctity of substitution

to all sacred offerings

of an individual,

can you say that concerning an offspring, to which it does not apply to all sacred offerings,

for a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering are males. And if so, it cannot be said that the offspring of a peace-offering is more stringent than a substitute of a peace-offering; rather, the substitute is more stringent than it!

And now,

since

the

offspring

does not apply to all sacred offerings,

it could have entered one’s mind to say that it

is not sacrificed.

Therefore,

the verse says “

male,”

to include the offspring.

The beraita further expounds: What the Torah said, “

female,”

comes

to include

the

substitute,

so that a substitute of a peace-offering too is sacrificed.

And the beraita continues: From these expositions,

I have only

to learn

the offspring of unblemished animals,

whose mother is unblemished,

and the substitute of unblemished animals,

whose animal into which the non-sacred animal was substituted is unblemished.

The offspring of בעלי מומין, and the substitute of בעלי מומין—from where

is it established that they too are sacrificed [even though the animal from which the sanctity came is not fit for sacrifice]?

The verse says “

whether male.”

The verse could have said “male and female,” but it said “whether male,”

to include the offspring of בעלי מומין.

And what the verse said, “

whether female,”

comes

to include the substitute of בעלי מומין.

Thus far the beraita.

Rav Safra said to Abaye: But let me reverse it!

Why did we expound it this way, and not expound in the reverse manner, that “whether male” refers to a substitute, and “whether female” refers to an offspring?

Abaye understood Rav Safra’s words as discussing the expositions from “whether,” to include the offspring of בעלי מומין and the substitute of בעלי מומין, and therefore Abaye said to him:

It is logical

to expound it this way! For

from the place where the substitute of unblemished animals was included,

from what the Torah said “female,” from there [that is, from the “whether” written beside it], from that very place

the substitute of בעלי מומין was included.

And from the place where an unblemished offspring was included, the offspring of a blemished animal was included.

He said to him

Rav Safra to Abaye:

Am I saying to you,

did I say to you

to reverse

the exposition of

“whether”

male

and of

“whether”

female

with regard to בעלי מומין?!

I am speaking about the entire verse!

I was speaking and arguing about that entire exposition concerning unblemished animals: “male” to include the offspring and “female” to include the substitute:

Say,

why should we not expound it in the reverse manner, “

male”

to include the substitute,

whereas

“female”

to include the offspring?

Abaye said to him

Abaye to Rav Safra:

Offspring implies the masculine expression,

therefore it was included from “male.” Whereas

substitute implies the feminine expression.

Therefore it was included from “female.”

and other amoraim also disagreed about this:

The Mishna below [18b] said: One who designates a female for a burnt-offering [and a female is not fit for a burnt-offering] and it gives birth to a male—the Sages and Rabbi Elazar disagree concerning the matter. The Sages hold that that offspring, although it is sacred with the sanctity of its mother, may not itself be sacrificed; rather, it grazes until it develops a blemish, and it is redeemed, and with its value they bring a burnt-offering. And Rabbi Elazar holds that it itself is sacrificed as a burnt-offering.

Therefore the Gemara discusses this beraita, which included the sanctity of peace-offerings for the offspring of peace-offerings whose mother is blemished: Does it have complete sanctity [more than its mother!] and is it sacrificed as a peace-offering? Or does it graze until it develops a blemish and is sold, and with its value they bring a peace-offering?

And the Gemara asks:

For what halakhic purpose,

for which halakha does the offspring of a blemished animal possess the sanctity of peace-offerings?

Shmuel said: It is completely sacred, even

to be sacrificed!

And the words of the beraita are

according to Rabbi Elazar,

who holds this concerning the offspring of a female burnt-offering, which likewise is not fit for sacrifice. And why was it necessary to teach this?

For it might have entered your mind to say,

there was room to say,

when Rabbi Elazar said,

when did he say that the offspring is sacred even to be sacrificed? Only with regard to an

did he say so, because

for

at any rate,

the name of a burnt-offering exists upon its mother.

For although she is not fit for sacrifice, nevertheless the sanctity of a burnt-offering has not departed from her, since it is possible for a female to be a burnt-offering, such as the burnt-offering of a bird, as explained above [14b]: “There is no requirement of unblemishedness and maleness with a bird.”

But these offspring,

of בעלי מומין, for which there is no possibility whatsoever of sanctity for sacrifice upon blemished peace-offerings [and there is no peace-offering of birds], it could have entered one’s mind to say that even according to Rabbi Elazar

they are not sacrificed!

Therefore

it teaches us

that according to Rabbi Elazar, in every case the offspring are sacrificed with the sanctity of peace-offerings.

Bar Padda said: What the beraita said, that the offspring of

blemished animals is like peace-offerings, is

for grazing

only.

And

it need not be established according to Rabbi Elazar; it was taught

according to everyone’s words,

even according to the Sages. The principal innovation of the beraita is that it is not non-sacred .

It was also stated, and other amoraim likewise disagreed concerning this: Rava said: To be sacrificed, and according to Rabbi Elazar, like Shmuel’s words. Whereas Rav Pappa said: For grazing, and according to everyone, like Bar Padda’s words. And this tanna,

and other amoraim likewise disagreed about this matter:

of the following beraita,

brings it

this law—that the offspring and substitutes of sacred offerings are like them—

from here,

from this verse:

The Torah said in the section concerning bringing offerings to the Temple [Deuteronomy 12]: “Only your sacred offerings that will be yours, and your vows, you shall carry and come to the place that the Lord will choose. And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.”

And we expound: What is said, “

Only your sacred offerings” -

these are substitutes,

which one is obligated to bring to the chosen place.

And what is said, “

that will be yours” -

these are the offspring.

“Only your sacred offerings” –

these are substitutes,

which one is obligated to bring to the chosen place. And that which is stated, “which you

And the beraita continues: It is further said there, “

You shall carry, and you shall come

to the place that the Lord will choose.” One might have thought that he should bring it, the offspring or the substitute, to the chosen place, and withhold water and food from them so that they die, and thereby fulfill “you shall carry and come to the place” [as will be explained below]? The verse says “

And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood

upon the altar of the Lord your God.”

In the manner in which you act with a burnt-offering, you act with a substitute.

And it is further said there: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” And which offering has its flesh eaten by the owners? You must say: This is a peace-offering. This teaches you:

In the manner in which you act with peace-offerings, you act with the offspring of peace-offerings

learned from “that will be yours,”

and with a substitute

learned from “only your sacred offerings.”

“And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood

upon the altar of the Lord your God.”

In the manner in which you treat a burnt-offering, so shall you treat its substitute.

It is further stated there: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” And which offering has flesh that the owners eat? You must say: This is a peace-offering. This teaches you that

in the manner in which you treat a peace-offering, so shall you treat the offspring of peace-offerings

derived from “that you will have,”

and the substitute

derived from “only your sacred offerings.”

And the beraita continues:

I might even say

all the consecrated animals are likewise—

their offspring and their substitutes should be brought as offerings?

The Torah therefore says:

“only,”

and wherever “but” or “only” is stated in the Torah, it comes to exclude; here it comes to exclude all the other consecrated animals [and the Gemara will explain the offspring or substitute of which offering it comes to exclude]. These are

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to exclude them by means of “only.” For

behold, it says

in the section of the guilt-offering [Leviticus 7 ],

“It is a guilt-offering,”

and we derive: only

it,

the guilt-offering,

is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed,

as will be explained below.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

The master said,

“

You shall carry and come.”

I might think that he should bring it into the chosen House, and withhold water and food from it so that it dies?

And one must ask:

From where would you derive this,

and why did it occur to you to say this, so that a teaching was required to say that this is not so?

Here, since it is known

as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that

five sin-offerings

die, including the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a sin-offering, it is possible to know that

these,

the offspring of a peace-offering and the substitute of a peace-offering, do not die, but

are sacrificed, indeed sacrificed;

why was this exposition necessary?

And we answer:

What might you have said?

It might have occurred to one to say that

the five sin-offerings die in every place

that it is,

and

if

these,

the offspring of a peace-offering and the substitute of a peace-offering,

were to die in the chosen House,

then he would fulfill “You shall carry and come.” Therefore,

it teaches us

the beraita that we derive from the end of the verse, “And you shall make your burnt-offerings, and so on,” that their law is that they are to be sacrificed.

The master said,

the beraita further said:

I might even say that all the consecrated animals are likewise?

The Torah therefore says:

“Only your consecrated animals.”

And the Gemara discusses this:

The offspring of whom?

The offspring of which offering was excluded from being sacrificed by “only”?

If it is the offspring of a burnt-offering,

this is impossible! Since

a burnt-offering is male, and is not capable of giving birth,

it has no offspring. As for the substitute of a burnt-offering, it certainly was not excluded, and it is sacrificed, as the beraita itself said: “As you act with a burnt-offering, so you act with its substitute.”

And if

it is the offspring of a sin-offering, which comes as a female, or the substitute

of a sin-offering,

this is difficult: why is an exclusion necessary? For

it is known to us

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai

that they proceed to death.