Temurah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

But as for the offspring

of the temura of an asham, where there is no

designation of an olah

upon its mother.

Furthermore, the original consecrated animal, by virtue of which both the temura and its offspring acquire their sanctity, was set aside as an asham, and as an asham it is offered. It does not stand to be offered as an olah, neither it nor its monetary value; and we do not find that the temura of an asham is offered as an olah. Therefore, from the outset, the temura did not descend with kedushat haguf for offering, but only with kedushat damim, for sale.

Accordingly, with regard to its offspring,

Rabbi Elazar concedes that with regard to its value—

no:

indeed, it is sold and its monetary value is used for an individual’s voluntary olah offering, whereas

the offspring itself is not offered.

In brief, setting aside a female for an olah and its giving birth is superior to the offspring of the temura of an asham in two respects: a. We find a “designation of an olah” upon a female, whereas we do not find a designation of an asham upon a female. b. The ultimate status of its mother is to be sold for the purpose of an “olah designation,” whereas the asham was not consecrated as an olah.

Abaye challenged

Rava:

Does Rabbi Elazar require

a “designation of an olah”

upon its mother

in order for the offspring itself to be offered?!

But it was taught:

We have learned in a beraita concerning the Paschal offering that he holds that it is offered as a shelamim, even though its mother is not a shelamim?

We have learned:

One who sets aside a female for his Paschal offering,

for a Paschal offering may only be a male—

it grazes

until it develops a blemish, is sold, and he brings a Paschal offering with its value.

If it gives birth

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

it grazes until it develops a blemish, is sold, and he brings a Paschal offering with its value,

since its sanctity derives from kedushat damim.

And the beraita continues:

If it remained after Passover—

it grazes

until it develops a blemish, and he brings a shelamim with its value.

Even though a Paschal offering during the rest of the year has the status of a shelamim [Menahot 83b], and a shelamim may also be a female, nevertheless, since it derives from a rejected sanctity, having not been fit for a Paschal offering, it is also rejected from being a shelamim.

If it gives birth

to a male after Passover—

it grazes until it develops a blemish, is sold, and he brings a shelamim with its value.

These are the words of the Rabbis.

Rabbi Elazar says: It itself is offered as a shelamim.

And Abaye concludes his challenge:

But here there is no

“designation of a shelamim”

upon its mother,

as it was consecrated for the sake of a Paschal offering,

and

nevertheless

Rabbi Elazar said:

itself

will be offered as a shelamim?

Rava said to him,

to Abaye:

Are you speaking of after Passover,

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

The case of

the Paschal offering

after Passover

is different, because

the surplus of the Paschal offering itself [

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 shelamim.

Therefore, the mother that remained after Passover acquires the “designation of a shelamim,” and the “designation of a Paschal offering” is removed from it. Although it cannot itself be offered as a shelamim [despite being a shelamim, and although shelamim may be female], since it derives from a Paschal offering and its sanctity is rejected, nevertheless, since it bears the “designation of a shelamim,” Rabbi Elazar holds that its offspring is itself offered as a shelamim.

Abaye said to Rava:

If so,

if the reason for Rabbi Elazar is indeed that there is a “designation of a shelamim” upon its mother—

he should also disagree in the first case.

Why does Rabbi Elazar not also disagree in the first case, when it gives birth before Passover, and hold that “it itself is offered as a shelamim” , since even before Passover, if it was slaughtered for the sake of a shelamim, it is a valid offering, because during the rest of the year, other than the fourteenth of Nisan, a Paschal offering is a shelamim [as explained in Zevaḥim 9b and Menahot 83b]? It follows that there is a “designation of a shelamim” upon its mother.

He said to him,

Rava to Abaye:

Yes, indeed, he disagrees

also in the first case. He holds that the offspring itself is offered as a shelamim, since there is a “designation of a shelamim” upon its mother, just as he holds this concerning an olah. And the statement in the beraita, “Rabbi Elazar says: It itself is offered as a shelamim,” also refers to the first case.

These are Rava’s words thus far in explaining Rabbi Elazar’s position. In essence, he says: The offspring itself is offered whenever the designation of that offering is upon its mother. Therefore, when one sets aside a female for an olah and it gives birth, the offspring is offered as an olah, since its mother bears the “designation of an olah.” Similarly, when one sets aside a female for his Paschal offering and it gives birth, whether before Passover or after Passover, the offspring is offered as a shelamim, since its mother bears the “designation of a shelamim.” In contrast, when one sets aside a female as an asham and it gives birth, since there is no “designation of an olah” upon its mother, the offspring itself is not offered as an olah; rather, it is sold for the needs of an olah.

Abaye disagrees with Rava and gives another explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s position. It is as follows: To wherever the “surplus” goes, the offspring goes. “Surplus

—its meaning is: One who sets aside a second animal as a safeguard, and achieves atonement through one of them, or if it was lost and he achieved atonement through another, and afterward the first was found, so that the second is “unneeded.”

Rabbi Elazar holds that the law of offspring is like the law of surplus, and wherever the surplus goes—whether it is offered itself or sold for its value—the offspring goes there as well.

Therefore, concerning one who sets aside a female for an olah and it gives birth, Rabbi Elazar holds in our Mishna that the offspring itself is offered as an olah, since the surplus of an olah is itself offered as an olah, for an olah is a voluntary offering and one may bring as many as he wishes. But the surplus of an asham cannot be offered as an asham, since an asham is not brought as a voluntary offering, and its law is that it is sold; likewise, the offspring of an asham is sold and is not offered itself.

And concerning the Paschal offering, it will be explained that there is a distinction between the first case, meaning one born before Passover, in which Rabbi Elazar concedes that it is not offered itself, and the latter case, when it was born after Passover:

Abaye said:

Rabbi Elazar

does not disagree at all,

he does not disagree in the first case, and he holds like the Rabbis, that it is sold and is not offered itself—

for it is a received tradition:

Rabbi Elazar received this principle from his teachers:

“To wherever the surplus goes—

the offspring goes.”

Therefore, it is understandable that in the latter case, which concerns

after Passover, when the surplus

of a Paschal offering after Passover

is offered

initially as

a shelamim—

the offspring too is offered as a shelamim—

but

in the first case, which concerns

before Passover ,

before Passover there cannot be any “surplus” at all. Although if it was slaughtered for the sake of a shelamim it is a shelamim, as explained, nevertheless, as long as it has not been slaughtered as a shelamim, it is not a shelamim. And if one sets aside another Paschal offering, the first is fit for nothing—not for a shelamim, since it is forbidden to slaughter it for the sake of a shelamim, and there is no need for two Paschal offerings. It acquires the status of “surplus” only after Passover, to be offered as a shelamim. But before Passover it is not even “surplus.” Therefore, just as the surplus is fit for nothing, so too the offspring—

Rather, its sanctity is like the sanctity of its mother, deriving from its mother’s sanctity. Now,

for what purpose was its mother consecrated

by the one who consecrated it? Did he not know that it was unfit for a Paschal offering ?! Clearly, he consecrated it

for the value of a Paschal offering.

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar holds that

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

and in the first case he concedes that it is not offered itself.

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

according to Abaye’s reasoning

Since its mother,

after Passover,

is for its value—

the offspring too is for its value?!

But it was taught,

was it not taught in a beraita:

One who sets aside a female for a Paschal offering—

it and

also

its offspring graze until they develop blemishes, are sold, and he brings a Paschal offering with their value.

These are the words of the Rabbis.

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

From the Rabbis’ statement that “he brings a Paschal offering with their value,” it is evident that this concerns the period before Passover—

and

this is difficult:

here,

its mother is for its 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 assign the offspring

with

the same sanctity as

its mother,

which was consecrated only for its value?

The challenger assumed that the beraita is speaking of one who set aside a female for a Paschal offering, and it became pregnant and gave birth before Passover, as in the previous beraita. Ravina answers: It is not as you said! If so, Rabbi Elazar would say that the offspring is offered as a shelamim. Rather, this beraita is speaking of one who consecrated a pregnant animal. Rabbi Elazar’s reason is that he holds that the fetus does not constitute a limb of its mother, but is an independent body and was consecrated independently. 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 aside a pregnant animal—

Rabbi Elazar holds like Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said [

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

if he left it over,

meaning that he left the fetus for another sanctity, it is

left over,

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

for a fetus is not a limb of its mother, but is an independent body. Similarly, here, when he consecrated the mother and the fetus as a Paschal offering,

and its mother did not become consecrated with kedushat haguf

for a Paschal offering, since it is unfit for a Paschal offering and is consecrated only for its value,

but it

the fetus, which is fit for a Paschal offering—

becomes consecrated.

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar holds that 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

does it teach:

“it and

also

its offspring”?

This implies that both were present at the time of consecration. But if the case were one in which an animal was consecrated and became pregnant afterward, the beraita should have been phrased like the previous beraita: “One who sets aside a female for his Paschal offering and it gives birth to a male.”

And we conclude:

Conclude from it!