Temurah 19b — the Talmud in English

Until here we explained the view of Rabbi Elazar concerning one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering and it gives birth, concerning the offspring of a substitute for an olah, concerning one who designates a female animal for an olah and it gives birth, and concerning the offspring of a substitute for an asham.

Now his view will be explained concerning one who designates a female animal for an asham [and the mother is not fit for an asham, and it is sold for the purpose of bringing an asham, as explained in the following Mishna], and it gives birth: what is the law of the offspring? Does it itself come as an asham, or does it graze until it develops a blemish and is sold for the purpose of an asham?

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to one who designates a female animal for an asham -

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes in the case of one who designates a female animal for an asham

that its offspring does not come as an asham,

and sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it, but only sanctity of its monetary value. And the reason will be explained below.

And we challenge this:

It is obvious!

For

Rabbi Elazar stated only

that it itself comes

in the case of one who designates a female animal for an olah,

because

there is

Is this obvious?

the designation “olah”

Rabbi Elazar said only

upon its mother

in the case of the bird olah.

But with regard to one who designates a female animal for an asham, where there is not

in the case of one who designates a female animal as an olah,

the designation “asham”

there is

upon its mother,

as we have not found a female asham, and there is no asham among birds,

even Rabbi Elazar concedes that it does not come

as an

asham.

And what does Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina teach us?

And we answer:

Had he not taught us,

if Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina had not taught us this,

I would have said,

we would have said:

The reason of Rabbi Elazar

in the case of one who designates a female animal for an olah and it gives birth

is not because there is

Had he not taught us this,

the designation “olah”

I might have said,

upon its mother,

and it does not depend upon this,

but

his reason is

because the offspring is fit to be offered, and

therefore,

this one too,

this offspring also, whose mother was designated for an asham, is itself

fit to be offered -

indeed fit to be sacrificed—

Therefore,

he teaches us

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina that Rabbi Elazar’s reason concerning an olah is that there is “the designation olah” upon its mother, which is not so concerning an asham, where there is no “designation asham” upon its mother; therefore, it itself does not come.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina came to exclude the possibility that it should be offered itself since it is “fit to be offered,” this is difficult:

rather than teaching us

this, by saying

that its offspring does not come as an

If so,

asham,

Rather than teach us

let him teach us

a greater novelty:

that its offspring does not come as an

that its offspring is not sacrificed as an

olah,

asham—

and the same law applies to an asham?

That is, what we learned in the following Mishna, that one who designates a female animal for an asham sells it for the purpose of an asham, applies specifically so long as he has not yet achieved atonement through another asham. But if he has already achieved atonement, and a person does not bring two ashams, its monetary value goes toward an olah, according to everyone.

And now, if Rabbi Elazar indeed held that view [which Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina excluded], that the offspring is offered for whatever it is fit for, the law would be that if he had already achieved atonement through another one, the offspring would be offered as an olah, since its mother is now designated for the monetary value of an olah -

And if Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina indeed wished to exclude this view, and this is his principal novelty, he should have said: “And Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to one who designates a female animal for an asham that its offspring does not come ‘as an olah.’” And all the more so we would know that it does not come as an asham, since its mother is not designated for an asham, neither she nor her monetary value. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina not say this? And we answer: He could not have said this, because

had he taught us

that the offspring does not come

as an olah,

had he taught us

I would have said,

indeed,

it is only an olah that does not come

because

he did not sanctify its mother with

olah,

the sanctity of an olah

at all [rather, since he achieved atonement through another, its monetary value goes toward an olah].

But in the case of an asham, since he sanctified its mother as an asham, say that the offspring comes as an asham; he teaches us

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina that it does not come even as an asham.

And according to his view, this is a greater novelty. Nevertheless, his principal novelty is, as explained, that one should not say that Rabbi Elazar holds that the offspring is offered for every purpose for which it is fit.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna we learned concerning one who designates a female animal for an olah and it gives birth: what is the law of the offspring? In our Mishna the law of one who designates a female animal for an asham will be explained, which also comes only from a male: what is the law of that female animal which he sanctified for an asham?

One who designates a female animal for an asham -

I might have said,

it shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold, and he shall bring

its owner

an asham with its monetary value,

if he has not yet achieved atonement through another asham.

And if

he has already

offered his asham -

it is only an olah that is not sacrificed

its monetary value shall go to the free-will offering,

for a communal olah.

Rabbi Shimon says: It does not need to graze until a blemish develops in it; rather,

It does not need to graze until it develops a blemish; rather,

it shall be sold without a blemish,

since, because a female is not fit for an asham, this is a complete blemish, and sanctity of the body did not take effect upon it; rather, only sanctity of monetary value took effect upon it for sale, and with its monetary value he shall bring an asham.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the words of the first tanna, who holds that it may be sold only once a blemish develops in it.

And why do I need “until it develops a blemish”?

Why should it not

be sold

without a blemish, since

because it is not fit for its purpose,

that it is not fit for the matter for which it was sanctified, namely, for an asham,

that is a blemish!

This matter is a complete blemish, and certainly it became sanctified only for its monetary value.

And we conclude:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This is the reason,

This is the reason,

that we say: “

that we say: “

Since it descends upon it

from the fact that it descended upon it

sanctity of monetary value -

Since sanctity of value descended upon it [A0233]from the fact that it descended upon it

sanctity of the body also descends upon it,” but not that it should be fit for offering; rather, that it may not be sold without a blemish.

Rabba said:

sanctity of value—

This indicates that one who sanctifies a male for its monetary value -

sanctity of the body also descended upon it,”

becomes sanctified with sanctity of the body.

That is, from these words Rabba learned that one who sanctifies a male for its monetary value, saying at the time of its sanctification, “Behold, this is sanctified on condition that it be sold, and with its monetary value I shall bring an olah or an asham” - cannot sell it; rather, it itself comes as an offering. For just as when one sanctifies a female, sanctity of the body takes effect upon it to the extent that it can take effect, and at least so that it may not be sold without a blemish, so when one sanctifies a male for its monetary value, sanctity of the body takes effect upon it to the extent that it can take effect, since sanctity of monetary value takes effect upon it. And since it is possible for sanctity of the body for actual offering to take effect upon it, it never leaves the domain of the altar.

It was stated: One who sanctifies a male for its monetary value -

This indicates that one who consecrates a male animal for its value

Rav Kahana said: It becomes sanctified with sanctity of the body.

consecrates it with sanctity of the body.

Rava said: It does not become sanctified with sanctity of the body,

since he sanctified it only for its monetary value.

And we conclude:

And Rava retracted his position,

he changed his mind

in favor of Rav Kahana’s position,

and accepted his words,

from Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,

who explained our Mishna in this manner concerning one who sanctifies a female: The reason of the first tanna is that “since sanctity of monetary value descends upon it, sanctity of the body descends upon it.”

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: It shall be sold without a blemish.

Rabbi Shimon says: It may be sold without a blemish.

And the Gemara discusses the reason of Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let us say,

why does Rabbi Shimon not hold:

Since sanctity of monetary value descends upon it, sanctity of the body should also descend upon it

[should descend upon it]

as well?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning,

he holds according to his method,

as

Rabbi Shimon

said:

Anything that is not fit for itself,

sanctity of the body does not descend upon it.

does not acquire sanctity of the body.

Therefore it shall be sold without a blemish.

As it is taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

An asham,

which is valid only

when it is one year old,

such as the asham of a nazirite or the asham of one afflicted with tzaraat, concerning which “lamb” is stated [Numbers 6; Leviticus 14], and a lamb is called by this name only during its first year from the time of its birth until the final day of its first year.

And

although it is valid only during one year,

he brought it,

he slaughtered it in the Temple courtyard when it was

two years old.

Or an asham

two years old,

such as the asham for robbery, the asham for misuse, or the asham of a betrothed maidservant, concerning which “ram” is stated [Leviticus 5], and a ram is one from the time it is one year and thirty-one days old until the final day of its second year,

and he brought it when it was one year old -

As it is taught,

They are valid,

and they do not leave the domain of the altar,

but

however,

they do not fulfill the owners’ obligation,

and they must bring another asham for their obligation. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: They are not sanctified at all,

they are not sanctified in any way. For Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, that anything whose body is not fit for offering is not imbued with sanctity of the body, and it is like one who brings non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon’s position here and Rabbi Shimon’s position concerning an animal that has not yet reached the proper time.

But what of an animal that has not yet reached the proper time, which is not fit, and Rabbi Shimon said that it becomes sanctified!

But what of an animal that is not yet of the required age, which is unfit, and Rabbi Shimon said that it does acquire sanctity!

An animal that is not yet of age" is something that has neither a defect nor a disqualification; rather, it is still unfit for sacrifice because of its age. This is the case, for example, with a lamb that has just been born, which is unfit for sacrifice until the eighth day after its birth; or with turtledoves that have not yet reached the age of maturity; or with an animal and its offspring, which may not be slaughtered on the same day. And we find that Rabbi Shimon holds [Hullin 81a] that one who slaughters an animal that is not yet of age outside the Azara is liable for violating the prohibition of slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard, namely, the prohibition against slaughtering outside the courtyard sacrificial animals that are fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

This proves that if one consecrated an animal that was not yet of age, it became sanctified with sanctity of the body. For if it did not become sanctified with sanctity of the body, one would not be liable to receive karet if he slaughtered it outside the courtyard, since its sanctity would not render it fit for the altar. But this is difficult: How did it become sanctified with sanctity of the body while it was not yet of age, when it is not fit in itself?

And we answer:

It is different;

the law of

an animal that is not yet of age, for

in any event it

will be fit tomorrow.

This is not so with one who consecrates a female animal as an asham, which is fit neither today nor tomorrow.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if it is as you say—that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an item that will become fit at a later time acquires sanctity of the body—this is difficult:

an asham that is two years old, for which he brought an animal that was one year old

before its proper time: Why did Rabbi Shimon say, “They are not sanctified at all”?

But it will be fit the following year!

It will, after all, become fit at a later time.

Therefore, the Gemara retracts its explanation that Rabbi Shimon’s reason concerning an animal that is not yet of age is that it will become fit tomorrow. Rather, even an animal that will become fit at a later time does not, in Rabbi Shimon’s view, acquire sanctity of the body, since it is unfit at the time of its consecration.

Rather, this is Rabbi Shimon’s reason concerning an animal that is not yet of age:

It becomes sanctified if one consecrates it because

he derives its law from a firstborn animal,

which is sanctified even before its proper time, from the womb; it is sanctified even though it may be sacrificed only after eight days.

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet

arrived

enters the pen to be tithed,

for the animal tithe, and if it emerges as the tenth animal, it becomes sanctified with sanctity of the body;

and it is like a firstborn animal.

Just as a firstborn animal is sanctified before its proper time but sacrificed after its proper time, so too an animal that is not yet of age is sanctified before its proper time,

if one consecrates it,

and sacrificed after its proper time.

There is a practical difference between the dispute of the Sages and Rabbi Shimon with regard to the law of temura, as explained in the following beraita.

The Sages taught:

One who consecrates

a female animal for his burnt offering,