Temurah 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

Up to this point, we have 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 as 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 to be an asham, but it is sold for the purpose of purchasing an asham, as explained in the following Mishna], and it gives birth: What is the status of the offspring? Is it itself sacrificed as an asham, or does it graze until it develops a blemish and is sold for the purpose of purchasing an asham?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering

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 is not sacrificed as an asham,

and sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it; rather, it has sanctity only with regard to its value. The reason for this will be explained below.

And we raise an objection:

Is this obvious?

For

Rabbi Elazar stated

that the offspring itself is sacrificed

only with regard to one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering,

because

there is

Is this obvious?

For

Rabbi Elazar said only

that the offspring itself is sacrificed

in the case of a bird burnt offering.

But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering, where there is no

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

because

there is

the designation “olah” upon its mother through the bird olah. But with regard to one who designates a female animal for an asham, where there is no designation “asham” upon its mother,

as we do not find a female asham, and there is no asham offering among birds,

even Rabbi Elazar concedes that the offspring is not sacrificed

as an

asham.

What, then, does Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina teach us?

And we answer:

Had he not taught us this,

if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, had not taught us this,

we might have said,

we would have said:

The reason for Rabbi Elazar’s ruling

with regard to one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering and it gives birth

is not because there is

Had he not taught us this,

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

I might have said,

we would have said: The reason for Rabbi Elazar’s view in the case of one who designates a female animal as an olah and it gives birth is not because there is the designation “olah” upon its mother,

and it is not dependent upon that;

rather,

his reason is

because the offspring is fit to be sacrificed, and

therefore,

this one too,

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

is in fact fit to be sacrificed—

indeed fit to be sacrificed—

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Rabbi Elazar’s reason concerning an olah is that there is a “designation of olah” upon its mother, whereas in the case of an asham there is no “designation of asham” upon its mother; therefore, it itself is not sacrificed.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, came to rule out the possibility that the offspring itself should be sacrificed because it is “fit to be sacrificed,” this is difficult:

rather than teaching us

this by saying

that its offspring is not sacrificed as a

If so,

if Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina came to exclude the possibility that the offspring itself should be sacrificed because it is “fit to be sacrificed,” this is difficult:

Rather than teach us

this by saying

an even greater novelty:

that its offspring is not sacrificed as a

that its offspring is not sacrificed as an

burnt offering,

asham—

let him teach us a greater novelty: that its offspring is not sacrificed as an olah, and the same applies to an asham? That is, what we learned in the following Mishna—that a female animal designated for an asham is sold for the purpose of purchasing an asham—applies specifically so long as its owner has not yet achieved atonement through another asham. But if he has already achieved atonement, and a person does not bring two ashams, its value is allocated for an olah, according to everyone.

That is, what we learned in the following Mishna—that a female animal designated as a guilt offering is sold so that a guilt offering can be purchased with its proceeds—applies specifically as long as the owner has not yet achieved atonement through another guilt offering. But if he has already achieved atonement, and a person does not bring two guilt offerings, its proceeds are used for a burnt offering, according to everyone.

Now, if Rabbi Elazar indeed held [the opinion that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina rejected] that the offspring is sacrificed for whatever offering it is fit for, the law would be that if its owner had already achieved atonement through another offering, the offspring would be sacrificed as an olah, since its mother is now designated for the value of an olah—

And if Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina indeed wished to reject this opinion, and this was his principal novelty, he should have said: “And Rabbi Elazar concedes in the case of one who designates a female animal for an asham that its offspring is not sacrificed as an ‘olah.’” And we would certainly have known that it is not sacrificed as an asham, since its mother is not designated for an asham—neither the animal itself nor its value. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina not say this? And we answer: He could not have said this, because

had he taught us that the offspring is not sacrificed as an

that the offspring does not come

elevation offering,

had he taught us

that the offspring is not sacrificed as an

indeed,

it is only a burnt offering that is not sacrificed

because

its mother was not consecrated with

olah,

the sanctity of a burnt offering

at all [rather, once the owner achieved atonement through another offering, its proceeds are used for a burnt offering].

But in the case of a guilt offering, since its mother was consecrated as a guilt offering, one might say that the offspring is sacrificed as a guilt offering; he therefore teaches us

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that it is not sacrificed even as a guilt offering.

And according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, this is the greater novelty. Nevertheless, as explained, his main novelty is that one should not say that Rabbi Elazar holds that the offspring is sacrificed for anything for which it is fit.

Mishna:

In the previous Mishna, we learned the law concerning one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering and it gives birth: What is the status of the offspring? In our Mishna, the law concerning one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering will be explained. A guilt offering, too, can be brought only from a male animal; what is the status of this female animal that he consecrated as a guilt offering?

One who designates a female animal as a guilt offering—

I might have said,

indeed,

its owner

a guilt offering with its proceeds,

if he has not yet achieved atonement through another guilt offering.

And if

he has already

sacrificed his guilt offering—

it is only an olah that is not sacrificed

because he did not consecrate its mother with the sanctity of an olah at all [rather, once its owner achieved atonement through another offering, its value is allocated for an olah]. But with regard to an asham, since he consecrated its mother for an asham, say that the offspring is sacrificed as an asham; he teaches us Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina that it is not sacrificed even as an asham. And according to his view, this is the greater novelty. Nevertheless, as explained, his principal novelty is that one should not say that Rabbi Elazar holds that the offspring is sacrificed for anything for which it is fit. Mishna: In the previous Mishna we learned, with regard to one who designates a female animal as an olah and it gives birth, what the status of the offspring is. In our Mishna, the law of one who designates a female animal for an asham will be explained. An asham also comes only from a male; what, then, is the status of that female animal that he consecrated as an asham? One who designates a female animal for an asham— it shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold, and he shall bring its owner an asham with its value, if he has not yet achieved atonement through another asham. And if he has already sacrificed his asham— its value shall be allocated for the donation,

for a communal olah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

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

it may be sold without a blemish, since a female animal is not fit to be an asham, this is a complete blemish, and it did not acquire sanctity of the body; rather, it acquired only sanctity of value, for sale, and with its value he brings an asham. Gemara:

because, since a female animal is unfit for a guilt offering, this is a complete blemish, and it did not acquire sanctity of the body, but only sanctity of value for the purpose of being sold; a guilt offering is brought with its proceeds.

Gemara:

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

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

Why may it not

be sold

without a blemish, since

once it is not fit for its designated purpose,

as it is not fit for the matter for which it was consecrated, namely, an asham,

that is a blemish!

This is a complete blemish, and certainly it acquired sanctity only with regard to its value.

And we conclude:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This is the reason,

This is the reason,

as we say: “

that we say: “

Since sanctity of value

takes effect upon it,

sanctity of value—

Since sanctity of value descended upon it from the fact that it descended upon it

sanctity of the body also takes effect upon it.” It does not mean that the animal is fit to be sacrificed; rather, it means that it may not be sold without a blemish.

Rabba said:

sanctity of value—

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

sanctity of the body also descended upon it,”

but not that it is fit to be sacrificed; rather, it may not be sold without a blemish.

Rabba said:

It was stated: One who consecrates a male animal for its value—

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

Rav Kahana said: It acquires sanctity of the body.

consecrates it with sanctity of the body.

That is, from these statements Rabba learned that one who consecrates a male animal for its value, saying at the time of its consecration, “This is consecrated on condition that it be sold, and with its value I will bring an olah or an asham” — cannot sell it; rather, it itself is sacrificed. For just as when one consecrates a female animal, sanctity of the body takes effect upon it to the fullest extent possible, and in any event it may not be sold without a blemish, so too, when one consecrates a male animal for its value, sanctity of the body takes effect upon it to the fullest extent possible, since sanctity of value takes effect upon it. And since sanctity of the body can take effect upon it for actual sacrifice, it can never be removed from the altar. It was stated: One who consecrates a male animal for its value— Rav Kahana said: It acquires sanctity of the body. Rava said: It does not acquire sanctity of the body,

since he consecrated it only for its value.

And we conclude:

Rava retracted his position

and changed his view

in favor of Rav Kahana’s opinion,

and accepted his statement,

based on Rav Yehuda who said that Rav,

who explained our Mishna concerning one who consecrates a female animal: The reason of the first tanna is that “since sanctity of value descended upon it, sanctity of the body also descended upon it.”

We learned in our Mishna:

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

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

And the Gemara discusses Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yohanan: Let us say,

why does Rabbi Shimon not hold that

since sanctity of value descended upon it, sanctity of the body should also descend upon it and descend upon it as well? He said to him,

it should

also acquire sanctity of the body?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning,

he holds in accordance with his own approach,

as Rabbi Shimon said: Anything that is not fit for him with regard to its own body,

Rabbi Shimon said:

Anything that is not fit for its own sake,

for sacrificial sanctity and sacrifice,

does not acquire sanctity of the body.

does not acquire sanctity of the body.

Therefore, it may be sold without a blemish.

As it is taught in a beraita,

as we learned in a beraita:

A guilt offering,

which is fit only when it is

one year old, as in the guilt offering of a nazirite or the guilt offering of a leper, where the term “lamb” is stated [Numbers 6; Leviticus 14]. A lamb is called by this name only during its first year, from its birth until the final day of its first year.

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 fit only during its first year,

he brought it,

and slaughtered it in the Temple courtyard when it was

two years old.

Or a guilt offering that is

two years old, as in the guilt offering for robbery, the guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, or the guilt offering of a betrothed maidservant, where the term “ram” is stated [Leviticus 5]. A ram is an animal from the time it becomes one year and thirty-one days old until the final day of its second year,

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,

as we learned in a beraita: An asham, which is valid only when it is one year old, as in the case of the asham of a nazirite or the asham of a leper, with regard to which “lamb” is stated [Numbers 6; Leviticus 14], and a lamb is called by this designation 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 its first year, if he brought it, and slaughtered it in the Temple courtyard when it was two years old. Or an asham two years old, as in the case of the asham for a false oath, the asham for misuse of consecrated property, or the asham for a betrothed maidservant, with regard to which “ram” is stated [Leviticus 5], and a ram is one that has reached one year and thirty-one days until the final day of its second year, and he brought it when it was one year old— They are valid,

and they do not leave the altar,

but

they nevertheless

do not fulfill the owners’ obligation,

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

Rabbi Shimon says: They are not consecrated at all,

they have no sanctity whatsoever. For Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning: Anything whose body is not fit for sacrifice does not acquire sanctity of the body, and this is like bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon’s position here and Rabbi Shimon’s position concerning an animal that is not yet of the required age.

But what of an animal that has not yet reached the minimum age, which is unfit for sacrifice, and Rabbi Shimon said that it acquires sanctity!

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,