Temurah 20a — the Talmud in English

And for his Paschal offering and his guilt offering,

it

makes a substitution,

for if he substituted an unconsecrated animal for it and said, “This is in place of this,” the sanctity of substitution takes hold upon the unconsecrated animal; these are the words of the Sages.

And the reason is that the Sages follow their position in our Mishna, that one who consecrates a female animal as an olah may not sell it without a blemish, because sanctity of the body descends upon it. Therefore, it makes a substitution.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he consecrated a female

for his olah,

it

makes a substitution,

as explained in our Mishna, where Rabbi Shimon concedes concerning an olah that it may not be sold without a blemish, since there is upon it the “designation of an olah” in the bird olah. But if he consecrated a female

for his Paschal offering and his guilt offering,

and substituted another animal for it,

it does not make a substitution,

because

you have no thing that makes a substitution except one that is left to become blemished,

for sanctity of the body has taken hold upon it, at the least to the extent that it may not be sold without a blemish.

And Rabbi Shimon follows his position in our Mishna, that no sanctity of the body takes hold upon the guilt offering; and the same applies to the Paschal offering, and it may be sold without a blemish. Therefore, it is not consecrated, and it does not make a substitution.

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi said: I do not see [

I do not find convincing ]

the words of Rabbi Shimon concerning the Paschal offering, since the surplus of a Paschal offering,

which remains after the Paschal offering,

is sacrificed as a peace offering.

And since the Paschal offering has a connection to peace offerings, and peace offerings may be female, therefore, when one consecrates a female as his Paschal offering, there is upon it the “designation of a peace offering,” and sanctity of the body descends upon it so that it may not be sold without a blemish. Therefore, it makes a substitution.

And the intention is not that the female animal consecrated for a Paschal offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering, for we learned above [19a]: “If it remained after the Paschal offering—it shall graze.” Rather, the “designation of a peace offering” is upon it.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If, according to Rabbi’s words, when the “surplus” of an item will ultimately come to be an item that has sanctity for grazing, sanctity takes hold upon it also with regard to making a substitution, then why do his words appear to apply only to a Paschal offering? After all, “the surplus of a guilt offering is sacrificed as an olah,” and this female animal will ultimately become an olah, upon which there is “sanctity of the body” for grazing, as explained, since there is upon it the “designation of an olah” in the bird olah.

And if Rabbi takes into consideration what it will ultimately become when it is sanctified for grazing, and therefore it makes a substitution—

let him say,

he should likewise have said: “

I do not see the words of Rabbi Shimon concerning a guilt offering, since the surplus of a guilt offering is sacrificed as an olah” —

and in what, then, does a guilt offering whose surplus becomes an olah differ from a Paschal offering whose surplus becomes a peace offering ?

And we answer: Indeed! For this reason it would make a substitution, but for another reason it does not make a substitution, because

Rabbi follows the Sages, who say

in the following Mishna:

surpluses

go to the communal freewill offering,

and since

there is no substitution in the community, a communal offering does not make a substitution, as explained [13a]. Therefore, even if the surplus of a guilt offering is sacrificed as an olah, it does not make a substitution.

The Gemara returns to the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Гемара возвращается к словам Рабби Шимона.

It might have entered your mind,

the members of the academy thought to say that

this is the reason for Rabbi Shimon concerning one who sets aside a female for his olah, and for this reason it makes a substitution: for there is

the “designation of an olah”

upon it for a poor person

in the bird olah.

For example: a person afflicted with scale disease, when he is wealthy, brings a lamb as an olah, and when he is poor, he brings a turtledove or a pigeon .

And in this manner Rabbi Shimon said that concerning an olah it makes a substitution, but not concerning a freewill olah .

And we object:

But if so,

if this is his reason, why should we not say so

concerning the High Priest who set aside a cow

female

for his bull,

for his obligatory “bull of cattle for a sin offering” on Yom Kippur, which is male—

let it acquire sanctity! For

there

is

upon it the “designation of a sin offering” in the

sin-offering cow,

that is, the red cow, which is female. Why did Rabbi Shimon not say this?

And we reject:

The sin-offering cow

is consecrated property for the repair of the Temple, and consecrated property for the repair of the Temple does not make a substitution [above, 13a], and it is not sacrificed upon the altar, and there is no sanctity of the body upon it at all, and it may be redeemed without a blemish [if one finds a more attractive one ],

and its sanctity is sanctity of value alone.

Therefore, it is not possible to say that upon this cow, which the High Priest set aside for Yom Kippur, sanctity of the body takes hold because there is upon it the “designation of a sin offering” in the sin-offering cow. Although Scripture calls it a “sin offering” [Hulin 11], and it has several laws like a sin offering, nevertheless it has no sanctity of the body and it is not an offering at all.

And we object:

A commoner [

one who is not a prince ], whose sin offering is a female she-goat,

who set aside a he-goat for his female goat—

let it acquire sanctity! For

there

is a prince’s he-goat,

who brings a male he-goat for his sin offering.

Alternatively, a prince who set aside a female goat for his sin offering—

let it acquire sanctity! For a commoner sets aside a female goat.

the prince and the ordinary person— two different people, with different laws. In the same person, we do not find a male goat as a sin offering in the case of an ordinary person, nor do we find a female goat in the case of a prince. This is not so with regard to an olah, where, in the case of the same person with leprosy, we find that he brings a female olah, since if he wished, he could become poor by declaring his property ownerless, and then he would bring a bird olah, which includes a female bird. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon holds that his olah possesses the designation of an olah, since it is fit for him as a bird olah. sinned before he was appointed to be a prince, and became obligated to bring a female goat, but had not yet set aside a female goat for his sin offering, and was appointed to be a prince, and now when he sets aside a male goat for the obligation of his female goat—

And why did Rabbi Shimon not say this?

And we reject:

These,

the prince and the commoner,

are two bodies!

They are two different people, and their laws differ from one another. And in the same person we have not found a he-goat for a sin offering in the case of the commoner, nor in the same person have we found a female goat in the case of the prince. This is unlike an olah, where in the same person afflicted with scale disease we find that he may bring a female olah, since if he wished he could become poor by making his property ownerless, and then he would bring a bird olah, which also includes a female. Therefore Rabbi Shimon holds that there is upon his olah the “designation of an olah,” since it is fit for him in the bird olah.

And we object: in a case where that same commoner

sinned before he was appointed

to be a prince, and became obligated to bring a female goat, but had not yet set aside a female goat for his sin offering,

and was appointed

to be a prince, and now

when he sets aside a he-goat for the

obligation of

his female goat—

let it acquire sanctity! For it is one body,

Ведь это одно и то же тело,

since if he had sinned now,

after his appointment,

he would be one who must bring a he-goat.

И отвергают: в конце концов,

And we reject: in the end,

he did not sin

now, but when he was a commoner,

and he was not

obligated to bring a he-goat,

and what he set aside as a he-goat is nothing; the sanctity of a sin offering did not take hold upon it, and it does not make a substitution.

And we object:

If so, here too,

in the case of a wealthy person afflicted with scale disease,

he does not bring a bird olah

at all;

he brings it—

he is not obligated at all to bring a bird olah, since he is wealthy . Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon hold that if he set aside a female for his olah it makes a substitution because there is upon it the “designation of an olah” in the bird olah? After all, now he does not bring a bird olah ! And we conclude: Rabbi Shimon is not speaking of an obligatory olah, such as that of a wealthy person afflicted with scale disease,

but rather

of a freewill olah, and

Rabbi Shimon follows Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya—

It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah,” without specifying whether it is an animal olah or a bird olah, and likewise without specifying whether it is a lamb or a ram, a goat, a male goat, a calf, or a bull [for all of these are fit for an olah, provided that they are male]— shall bring a lamb. That is, he may bring the least costly of the animal olot, namely, a lamb. But he may not bring a bird olah, even if he is poor, so long as he did not explicitly say, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a bird olah.” These are the words of the Sages, since an unspecified vow does not generally assume anything less than a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: he may bring even a bird, either a turtledove or a young pigeon. Even if he is wealthy. And since Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with this view, he holds that a female animal designated as a voluntary olah possesses the designation of an olah, since he can discharge his obligation with a bird olah. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Shimon’s statement. We learned there, we learned a Mishna in tractate Shekalim [chapter 4, Mishna 7]: One who consecrates his property for Temple maintenance , and among it were animals fit for the altar, males and females, unblemished— It is clear that the animals themselves never cease to be destined for the altar; each one will be sacrificed for the purpose for which it is fit. For the established halakha is [below, 33b]: “When one consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance, when they are redeemed, they may be redeemed only for the altar, since whatever is fit for the altar never leaves the domain of the altar.” Rather, the tanna’im disagree about who will offer them, and when they are sold for the needs of those obligated to bring offerings, what is to be done with their proceeds. Rabbi Eliezer says: The males shall be sold for the needs of olot, and the females shall be sold for the needs of peace offerings, and their proceeds shall be included with the rest of the property,

As we learned,

we learned in a Mishna in tractate Menahot: one who says,

“An olah is incumbent upon me,”

and did not specify whether it was an animal olah or a bird olah, and likewise did not specify whether a lamb or a ram, a goat, a he-goat, a calf, or a bull [for all these are valid for an olah, provided they are males]—

he shall bring a lamb,

that is, he may bring the least valuable of the olot, which is a lamb. But he may not bring a bird olah, even if he is poor, so long as he did not explicitly say, “An olah of a bird is incumbent upon me.” These are the words of the Sages, because an unspecified vow does not impose upon him the least of the olot other than a lamb.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:

He may bring even a bird,

either a turtledove or a pigeon.

Even if he is wealthy.

And since Rabbi Shimon holds this way, he therefore holds that there is a “designation of an olah” upon a female in a freewill olah, since he can free himself through a bird olah .

The Gemara continues to discuss the words of Rabbi Shimon.

We learned there,

we learned a Mishna in tractate Shekalim [chapter 4, Mishna 7]:

One who consecrates his property,

for the repair of the Temple ,

and among it were animals fit for the altar, males and females,

unblemished—

And it is clear that the animals themselves never leave the domain of the altar at all, and each one of them will be sacrificed for that to which it is fit, for we hold [below, 33b]: “One who applies unblemished animals to the repair of the Temple, when they are redeemed, they are redeemed only for the altar, for whatever is fit for the altar never leaves the domain of the altar.”

Rather, the tannaim disagreed: who will sacrifice them, and when they are sold for the needs of those obligated to bring offerings, what shall be done with their proceeds?

Rabbi Eliezer says: The males shall be sold for the needs of olot, and the females shall be sold for the needs of peace offerings, and their proceeds shall fall together with the rest of the property,

animals with blemishes and the rest of the property—

for the repair of the Temple.

For Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the Temple, even animals fit for the altar; only the animals themselves are sacrificed upon the altar, as explained.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The intention of the one who consecrated was to consecrate specifically for the altar everything fit for the altar, and not for the repair of the Temple. Moreover, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that his intention was to sacrifice them as olot, which is the most important offering of all the offerings, since it is entirely consumed by the fires. Therefore he holds:

The males themselves shall be sacrificed as olot,

the one who consecrated them himself shall sacrifice them,

and the females,

which are not fit for an olah—but he presumably consecrated them for the purpose of an olah, as explained—therefore:

they shall be sold for the needs of peace offerings, and he shall bring

the one who consecrated them himself

olot with their proceeds, and the rest of the property shall fall for the repair of the Temple,

and his consecration for the repair of the Temple will be fulfilled through the rest of the property.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yohanan

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, who says “

the males themselves shall be sacrificed as olot,”

because he presumably consecrated them as olot, and he likewise holds that the proceeds of the peace offerings are olot, for the same reason, that he presumably consecrated them as olot, this is difficult:

the females,

how may they be sacrificed as peace offerings

by his purchasing them from the treasurer?

For they come by virtue of rejected sanctity

—they were consecrated for an olah, and we learned in our Mishna that a female set aside for an olah may be sacrificed only after it grazes until it becomes blemished?

Another version: Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yohanan: Since Rabbi Yehoshua says “

the males themselves shall be sacrificed as olot,”

does this mean,

is it his intention to say,

“I consecrated them with sanctity of the body!”

If so,

it is difficult:

the females—why should they be sold for the needs of peace offerings!?—

they should require

grazing,

as we learned in our Mishna, that one who sets aside a female for an olah lets it graze until it becomes blemished.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Yehoshua follows Rabbi Shimon, who says: Every item that is not fit for him itself does not acquire sanctity of the body.

As we learned

in our Mishna:

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

And we say

that the reason of Rabbi Shimon

is

since a female is not fit for a guilt offering—

sanctity of the body did not descend upon it

.

Here too,

in the case of one who consecrates his property,

since a female is not fit for an olah, sanctity of the body did not descend upon it,

even not for grazing.

And we object: What proof is there from a guilt offering to an olah?

Say that Rabbi Shimon said concerning

one who sets aside

a female for a guilt offering,