Temurah 19a — the Talmud in English

But its offspring

of a guilt-offering substitute, for there is no “

designation of an elevation”

upon its mother.

Furthermore, the first consecrated animal, by virtue of which the substitute and also its offspring came, was set apart as a guilt-offering, and as a guilt-offering it is offered; and it does not stand to be an elevation-offering, neither it nor its monetary value. And we have not found a guilt-offering substitute that is offered in the status of an elevation-offering. Therefore, from the outset, the bodily sanctity of offering did not descend upon the substitute; rather, only monetary sanctity for sale.

And therefore, with regard to its offspring,

Rabbi Elazar concedes that with its monetary value—

no:

indeed, they sell it, and its monetary value goes toward an individual elevation-offering, whereas

itself is not offered.

In brief, setting apart a female for an elevation-offering and its giving birth is preferable to the offspring of a guilt-offering substitute in two respects: a. We find a “designation of an elevation-offering” upon a female, but we do not find a designation of a guilt-offering upon a female. b. The ultimate status of its mother is to be sold for a “designation of an elevation-offering,” whereas the guilt-offering was not consecrated for an elevation-offering.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava

to Rava:

But does Rabbi Elazar require

a “designation of an elevation-offering”

upon its mother

in order that it itself be offered?!

But it was taught,

for we learned in a beraita concerning the Paschal-offering, where he holds that it is offered as a peace-offering even though its mother is not a peace-offering?

We learned:

One who sets apart a female for his Paschal-offering,

and a Paschal-offering is only a male—

it shall graze

until it develops a disqualifying defect, is sold, and he brings a Paschal-offering with its monetary value.

If it gave birth

to a male, it itself is not offered as a Paschal-offering; rather,

it shall graze until it develops a disqualifying defect, is sold, and he brings a Paschal-offering with its monetary value,

since its sanctity comes by virtue of monetary sanctity.

And the beraita continues:

If it remained after Passover—

it shall graze

until it develops a disqualifying defect, and he shall bring with its monetary value a peace-offering.

Even though a Paschal-offering during the rest of the year is a peace-offering [Menachot 83b], and a peace-offering may also be a female, nevertheless, since it comes by virtue of rejected sanctity, which was not fit for a Paschal-offering, it is also rejected from peace-offerings.

If it gave birth

to a male after Passover—

it shall graze until it develops a disqualifying defect, is sold, and he shall bring with its monetary value a peace-offering.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Elazar says: It itself is offered as a peace-offering.

And Abaye concludes his objection:

But here there is no “

designation of a peace-offering”

upon its mother,

for she was consecrated for the sake of a Paschal-offering,

and

nevertheless

Rabbi Elazar said:

itself

shall be offered as a peace-offering?

Rava said to him

to Abaye: But

are you speaking of after Passover,

to bring a contradiction to my understanding of Rabbi Elazar’s words?!

It is different,

the law of the Paschal-offering is different

after Passover,

because

the surplus of the Paschal-offering itself [A0130]a Paschal-offering that was not offered as a Paschal-offering and is not fit for the following year, since a Paschal-offering is only an animal in its first year

a Paschal offering that was not offered as a Paschal offering and is not fit for the following year, since a Paschal offering may only be an animal in its first year]

is offered as a peace-offering.

Therefore, its mother, which became surplus after Passover, acquires a “designation of a peace-offering,” and the “designation of a Paschal-offering” departs from her. And even though she herself cannot be offered as a peace-offering [despite the fact that she is a peace-offering, and peace-offerings may be female], since she comes by virtue of a Paschal-offering and her sanctity is rejected, nevertheless, since she bears a “designation of a peace-offering,” Rabbi Elazar holds that her offspring itself is offered as a peace-offering.

Abaye said to Rava:

If so,

if indeed Rabbi Elazar’s reason is that there is a “designation of a peace-offering” upon its mother—

let him also disagree at the beginning,

why does Rabbi Elazar not also disagree at the beginning, when it gave birth before Passover, and hold that “itself is offered as a peace-offering” , since even before Passover, if it was slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, it is a valid offering, because a Paschal-offering during the rest of the year, other than the fourteenth of Nisan, is a peace-offering [as explained in Zevachim 9b and Menachot 83b]? It follows that there is a “designation of a peace-offering” upon its mother.

He said to him

Rava to Abaye:

Indeed, this is so: he does disagree

also at the beginning. And he holds that the offspring itself is offered as a peace-offering, since there is a “designation of a peace-offering” upon its mother, just as he holds this concerning an elevation-offering. And what the beraita said, “Rabbi Elazar says: It itself shall be offered as a peace-offering,” refers also to the beginning.

Thus far are Rava’s words in explaining Rabbi Elazar’s position. Their essence is: the offspring itself is offered whenever there is the “designation” of that offering upon its mother. Therefore, one who sets apart a female for an elevation-offering and it gives birth: the offspring is offered as an elevation-offering, since its mother bears the “designation of an elevation-offering.” Likewise, one who sets apart a female for his Paschal-offering and it gives birth, both before Passover and after Passover: the offspring is offered as a peace-offering, since its mother bears the “designation of a peace-offering.” In contrast, one who sets apart a female for a guilt-offering and it gives birth, when there is no “designation of an elevation-offering” upon its mother: the offspring itself is not offered as an elevation-offering, but is sold for the needs of an elevation-offering.

Abaye disagrees with Rava and explains Rabbi Elazar’s position differently. Namely: wherever the “surplus” goes, the offspring goes. “Surplus”

means: one who sets apart a second animal for responsibility and achieves atonement through one of them, or if it was lost and he achieved atonement through another, and afterward it was found, so that the second one is “superfluous.”

And Rabbi Elazar holds that the law of the offspring is like the law of the “surplus,” and wherever the surplus goes, whether to being offered itself or to being sold for its monetary value, the offspring goes there.

Therefore, concerning one who sets apart a female for an elevation-offering and it gives birth, Rabbi Elazar holds in our Mishna that the offspring itself is offered as an elevation-offering, since even the surplus of an elevation-offering is offered itself as an elevation-offering, for an elevation-offering is a voluntary offering and one may bring as many as he wishes. But the surplus of a guilt-offering, which cannot be offered as a guilt-offering, since a guilt-offering does not come as a voluntary offering, and whose law is that it be sold—the offspring of a guilt-offering is likewise sold, and is not offered itself.

And concerning the Paschal-offering, it will be explained that there is a distinction between the beginning, namely, when it was born before Passover, when Rabbi Elazar concedes that it itself is not offered, and the end, when it was born after Passover:

Abaye said:

Rabbi Elazar

does not disagree at all,

he does not disagree at all at the beginning, and he holds like the Sages, that it is sold and is not offered itself—

for it is received as a tradition,

Rabbi Elazar received this principle from his teachers: “

Wherever the surplus goes—

the offspring goes” .

Therefore, in the case of the end, which deals with

after Passover, the surplus

of a Paschal-offering after Passover

is offered

initially as

a peace-offering—

the offspring too is offered as a peace-offering—

but

at the beginning, which deals with

before Passover ,

before Passover there cannot be any “surplus” at all. For although if it was slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering it is a peace-offering, as explained, nevertheless, as long as it was not slaughtered as a peace-offering it is not a peace-offering. And if he set apart another Paschal-offering, it is fit for nothing—not for a peace-offering, because it is forbidden to slaughter it for the sake of a peace-offering, and he has no need for two Paschal-offerings. It acquires the designation “surplus” only after Passover, to be offered as a peace-offering. But before Passover it is not even “surplus.” Therefore, just as the surplus is fit for nothing, so too is the offspring—

Rather, its sanctity is like the sanctity of its mother, by virtue of the sanctity of its mother. And now,

for what purpose was its mother consecrated

by the one who consecrated her? Did he not know that she was not fit for a Paschal-offering ?! It is clear that he consecrated her

for the monetary value of a Paschal-offering.

Therefore Rabbi Elazar holds that

the offspring too is for the monetary value of a Paschal-offering ,

and he concedes at the beginning that it itself is not offered.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raised an objection: And do we say

according to Abaye’s reasoning

since its mother,

after Passover,

is for monetary value—

the offspring too is for monetary value?!

But it was taught,

was it not taught in a beraita:

One who sets apart a female for a Paschal-offering—

it and

also

its offspring shall graze until they develop a disqualifying defect, be sold, and he shall bring with their monetary value a Paschal-offering.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Elazar says: It itself shall be offered as a Paschal-offering.

And from the words of the Sages, who said, “He shall bring with their monetary value a Paschal-offering,” it is proven that this concerns before Passover—

and

it is difficult:

here,

its mother is for monetary value, and

nevertheless

Rabbi Elazar said: It itself is offered as a Paschal-offering, and we do not establish it,

and Rabbi Elazar does not place the offspring

in

the same sanctity as

its mother,

who was consecrated only for monetary value?

The questioner assumed that the beraita speaks of one who set apart a female for a Paschal-offering, and she became pregnant and gave birth before Passover, as in the previous beraita. Ravina answers: It is not as you say! Had that been so, Rabbi Elazar would have said that the offspring is offered as a peace-offering. Rather, this beraita speaks of one who consecrated a pregnant animal. Rabbi Elazar’s reason is that he holds that the fetus does not belong to the mother, but is a body unto itself, and was consecrated separately. And that fetus, since it is fit for a Paschal-offering, is itself offered as a Paschal-offering.

Ravina said: Here

we are dealing with one who sets apart a pregnant animal—

Rabbi Elazar holds like Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said [above, 10b]: one who consecrates a pregnant animal,

above, 10b]: One who consecrates a pregnant animal,

if he left it aside,

leaving the fetus for another sanctity—

it is left aside,

for that other sanctity, and is not consecrated with the same sanctity as the mother,

because a fetus is not the thigh of its mother, but is a body unto itself. Likewise here, when he consecrated the mother and the fetus for a Paschal-offering,

and its mother did not become consecrated with kedushat haguf

whereas its mother did not become consecrated with bodily sanctity

for a Paschal-offering, since she is not fit for a Paschal-offering, and she is consecrated only for her monetary value,

but he

the fetus, which is fit for a Paschal-offering—

becomes consecrated.

Therefore Rabbi Elazar holds: it itself is offered as a Paschal-offering .

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: It is likewise reasonable that we are dealing with a pregnant animal—

F

What

it teaches, “

it and

also

its offspring,”

indicates that both were present at the time of the consecration. But if it were dealing with an animal that was consecrated and afterward became pregnant, it should have been formulated as in the previous beraita: “One who sets apart a female for his Paschal-offering and it gives birth to a male.”

And we conclude:

Learn from it!