Temurah 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Shmuel could say to you: Rabbi Elazar holds that

wherever it is not fit for its own purpose—

any animal that is not fit to be offered—

the sanctity of the body does not descend upon it.

The Sages, however, disagree with him, and hold that the sanctity of the body does descend upon it, and Shmuel follows their opinion.

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

We learned: All consecrated animals that

after their consecration

became tereifa—they are not redeemed, since consecrated animals are not redeemed in order to feed them to dogs;

rather, they require death and burial while retaining their sanctity.

And we infer:

The reason

the entire reason that they are consecrated is because they

“became”

tereifa after they had become consecrated;

but

if they

were

tereifa

from the outset,

before their consecration—the sanctity of the body did not apply to them at all, and they

are redeemed—

This proves that the sanctity of the body did not apply to it, which presents a difficulty to Shmuel?

And we answer:

Perhaps,

it is possible to say that

this tanna

holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, that

wherever it is not fit for its own purpose—

the sanctity of the body does not descend upon it.

The Sages disagree with him and hold that the sanctity of the body does descend upon it, and Shmuel follows their opinion.

We will return to you, chapter “There Are [Cases] among the Sacrifices.”

After the previous chapter explained the laws of the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a sin-offering, this chapter’s Mishna explains the laws governing the offspring and substitutes of the other offerings.

Mishna:

These are sacred offerings whose offspring and substitutes –

are like them.

Their offspring and substitutes are equal in their laws and sanctity to the sacred offerings themselves:

The offspring of a peace-offering, and its substitute.

Its offspring

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

And likewise,

the offspring of its offspring, to the end of all the generations, are peace-offerings,

with regard to all the laws of peace-offerings.

They require placing of hands, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh

as do peace-offerings.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the wording of the Mishna:

Since the tanna

who taught the Mishna already taught:

its offspring

of a peace-offering,

and

likewise

the offspring of its offspring

is sacrificed as a peace-offering, like the peace-offering itself, if so, why did the tanna repeat and add:

“to the end of all the generations” –

why do I need this?

And the Gemara explains:

Our tanna,

the tanna of our Mishna,

heard him

the teaching

of 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 confined in an enclosure and left to die, as will be explained there.

And

therefore,

our tanna said to him: It is not necessary to say that with regard to its offspring, I do not concede your point,

for I do not agree with your words; rather, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering,

but even with regard to the end of all the generations,

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

I do not concede your point,

as I maintain that they are always peace-offerings.

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

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived,

from where are these laws learned?

As the Sages taught:

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

Since the word “cattle” includes both male and female,

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

“Male” –

to include the offspring,

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

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

Is this not a matter that can be derived logically?

Its law can be learned by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if a substitute,

of a peace-offering,

which is not

the growth of a consecrated object,

nevertheless, it

is sacrificed,

as the beraita will explain below,

the offspring

of a peace-offering,

which

is

the growth of a consecrated object, is it not certainly the case 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 this argument can be refuted:

What is true of a substitute,

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

as it applies

to the sanctity of a substitute

with all sacred offerings

belonging to an individual,

can you say the same of an offspring, which does not apply to all sacred offerings?

After all, a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering are male animals. Therefore, one cannot say that the offspring of a peace-offering is more stringent than a substitute of a peace-offering; on the contrary, the substitute is more stringent than it!

Now,

since

the

offspring

does not apply to all sacred offerings,

one might have thought that it

is not sacrificed.

Therefore,

the verse states

“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 is also sacrificed.

The beraita continues: From these expositions,

I have derived

only the following:

the offspring of unblemished animals,

whose mother is unblemished,

and the substitute of unblemished animals,

where the non-sacred animal for which the sacred animal was substituted is unblemished.

From where is it derived that the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals are also sacrificed

even though the animal from which the sanctity originated is unfit for sacrifice?

The verse states

“whether male.”

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

to include the offspring of blemished animals.

And what the verse says,

“whether female,”

comes

to include the substitute of blemished animals.

This concludes the beraita.

Rav Safra said to Abaye: Why should I not reverse it!

Why did we expound it in this manner, rather than expounding it in reverse, so that “whether male” refers to a substitute and “whether female” refers to an offspring?

Abaye understood Rav Safra’s words to mean that he was discussing the expositions of “whether,” which include the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals. Abaye therefore said to him:

It is logical

to expound it this way, because

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

from the fact that the Torah said “female”—that is, from the “whether” written alongside it—one and the same place

included the substitute of blemished animals.

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

He said to him,

Rav Safra to Abaye:

Did I say to you

that I wanted

to reverse

the exposition of

“whether”

male

and of

“whether”

female

with regard to blemished animals?!

I am speaking about the entire verse!

I was referring to the entire exposition concerning unblemished animals: “male” includes the offspring and “female” includes the substitute. I said and asked:

Say

why should we not expound it in reverse:

“male”

to include the substitute,

whereas

“female”

to include the offspring?

Abaye said to him,

Abaye to Rav Safra:

“Offspring” is a masculine expression,

and therefore it was included from “male.” Whereas

“substitute” is a feminine expression.

Therefore, it was included from “female.”

The Mishna below [18b] states: If one set aside a female animal as a burnt-offering [and a female is not fit for a burnt-offering] and it gave birth to a male, the Sages and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the matter. The Sages maintain that although this offspring possesses the sanctity of its mother, it itself may not be sacrificed; rather, it is left to graze until it develops a blemish, then it is redeemed, and with its monetary value they bring a burnt-offering. Rabbi Elazar maintains that it itself is sacrificed as a burnt-offering.

Accordingly, the Gemara discusses this beraita, which included the sanctity of peace-offerings for the offspring of a peace-offering whose mother is blemished: Does it possess complete sanctity, even greater than that of its mother, and is it sacrificed as a peace-offering? Or is it left to graze until it develops a blemish, then sold, and with its monetary value they bring a peace-offering?

And the Gemara asks:

For what halakhic purpose,

for which law does the offspring of a blemished animal possess the sanctity of a peace-offering?

Shmuel said:

It is completely sacred, even

to be sacrificed!

The beraita’s statement follows

the opinion of Rabbi Elazar,

who maintains this with regard to the offspring of a female burnt-offering, which likewise is not fit for sacrifice. Why, then, was it necessary to teach this ruling?

For it might have been said,

one might have thought,

when Rabbi Elazar said,

that the offspring is sacred even to be sacrificed, he said this only with regard to a

burnt-offering,

because

there

is, in any event,

the designation “burnt-offering” 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—for example, a bird burnt-offering—as explained above [14b]: “There is no requirement of unblemished status and male sex in the case of a bird.”

But these offspring,

of blemished animals, for which there is no possibility whatsoever of the sanctity of a sacrifice applying to blemished peace-offerings [and there is no bird peace-offering], one might have thought 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 Pada said: What the beraita said, that the offspring of

blemished animals are like peace-offerings, applies

only to leaving them to graze,

and no further.

And

there is no need to establish it according to Rabbi Elazar; it was taught

according to everyone’s opinion,

even according to the Sages. The beraita’s essential novelty is that it is not non-sacred property.

It was also stated,

and other amoraim likewise disagreed about this matter:

Rava said: To be sacrificed, and according to Rabbi Elazar,

in accordance with Shmuel’s statement.

Whereas

Rav Pappa said: For leaving to graze, and according to everyone’s opinion,

in accordance with Bar Pada’s statement.

And this tanna,

of the following beraita,

derives it

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

from here,

from this verse:

The Torah states in the passage concerning bringing offerings to the Temple [Deuteronomy 12]: “Only your sacred offerings that you will have, and your vows, shall you take and bring to the place that the Lord will choose. And you shall offer 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: That which is stated,

“Only your sacred offerings” –

these are substitutes,

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

will have” –

these are the offspring.

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 “

The beraita continues: It is further stated there:

“You shall take and bring

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 it so that it dies, thereby fulfilling “you shall take and bring to the place” [as will be explained below].

and with a substitute

The verse states

“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 baraita continues:

Could it also be

that all sacred offerings are likewise,

that their offspring and substitutes are brought as offerings?

The verse states: “

Only,”

and wherever “but” or “only” is stated in the Torah, it comes to exclude something. Here, it comes to exclude all other sacred offerings [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: There is no need

to exclude them by means of “only,” because

it says

in the passage concerning an asham [Leviticus 7]: “

It is an asham,”

and we expound: Only

it—

the asham—

is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed,

as will be explained below.

And the Gemara analyzes the words of the baraita:

The Master said, “

You shall carry them and come.”

Could one bring it into the chosen House,

and withhold water and food from it so that it would die?

And one should ask:

From where would you derive this,

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

This is because, since it is known

by 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 could be understood that

these,

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

are sacrificed,

so why was this exposition necessary?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind

to say that

five sin offerings die everywhere

that they are,

but

these,

the offspring of

a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering,

should die in the chosen House,

thereby fulfilling “You shall carry them and come.” Therefore,

the baraita teaches us

that we derive from the latter part of the verse, “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, and so on,” that their status is that they are to be sacrificed.

The Master said,

the baraita further stated:

Could it also be that all sacred offerings are likewise?

The verse states: “

Only your sacred offerings.”

The Gemara analyzes this:

The offspring of whose offering

is excluded from being sacrificed by the word “only”?

If it is the offspring of a burnt offering,

this is impossible! Since

a burnt offering is male and cannot give birth, it has no offspring. As for the substitute of a burnt offering, it was certainly not excluded; it is sacrificed, as the baraita itself stated: “As you act with a burnt offering, so you act with its substitute.”

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 female sin offering, or the substitute

of a sin offering,

it is difficult: Why is an exclusion necessary? After all,

it is known to us

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai

that they go to die.