Temurah 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

and for its Paschal offering and guilt offering,

it

effects substitution,

for if one substituted an unconsecrated animal for it, saying, “This is in place of that,” the sanctity of substitution takes hold of the unconsecrated animal. These are the words of the Sages.

The reason is that the Sages follow their position in our Mishna: one who consecrates a female animal for an olah may not sell it unless it develops a defect, because the sanctity of the offering itself has descended upon it. Therefore, it effects substitution.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If one consecrated a female animal

for his olah,

it

effects substitution,

as explained in our Mishna, where Rabbi Shimon concedes that a female animal designated as an olah may not be sold unless it develops a defect, since it possesses the designation of an olah in the bird olah. But if one consecrated a female animal

for his Paschal offering or guilt offering,

and substituted another animal for it,

it does not effect substitution,

because

nothing effects substitution unless it is destined to graze until it develops a defect,

meaning that the sanctity of the offering itself has taken hold of it, at least to the extent that it may not be sold unless it develops a defect.

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

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi said: I do not see [

I do not find convincing ]

the words of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a Paschal offering, since the surplus of a Paschal offering,

which remains after the conclusion of Passover,

is sacrificed as a peace offering.

Since a Paschal offering has a connection to peace offerings, and peace offerings may be female, one who consecrates a female animal as his Paschal offering gives it the designation of a peace offering, and the sanctity of the offering itself descends upon it so that it may not be sold unless it develops a defect. Therefore, it effects substitution.

This does not mean that the female animal consecrated as a Paschal offering is to be sacrificed as a peace offering, for we learned above [19a]: “If it remained after Passover, it shall graze.” Rather, it possesses the designation of a peace offering.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If Rabbi’s statement means that when the “surplus” of an item will ultimately become an item whose sanctity is sufficient for it to be sent to graze, sanctity takes hold of it even with regard to effecting substitution, then why are his words not convincing in the case of a guilt 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 the sanctity of the offering itself rests sufficiently for it to be sent to graze, as explained, since it possesses the designation of an olah in the bird olah.

And if Rabbi takes into consideration what the animal will eventually become, and for that reason it effects substitution,

let him say,

he should likewise have said: “

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

so in what way, then, is a guilt offering, whose surplus becomes an olah, different from a Paschal offering, whose surplus becomes a peace offering?

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

Rabbi follows the opinion of the Rabbis, who say

in the following Mishna:

surplus offerings

go toward a communal donation.

And since

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

The Gemara returns to Rabbi Shimon’s statement.

It might have entered your mind

that the members of the academy intended to say that

this is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s position with regard to one who sets aside a female animal for his olah: for that reason it effects substitution, since there is

the designation of an olah

upon it in the case of a poor person

in the bird olah.

For example: a person with leprosy, when wealthy, brings a lamb as an olah, and when poor, brings a turtledove or a young pigeon . In this manner Rabbi Shimon said that in the case of an olah it effects substitution, but not in the case of a voluntary olah. And we challenge this: If so, if this is his reason, why should the same not be said with regard to the High Priest who set aside a cow a female animal

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

for his bull,

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

it should become consecrated! For

there is

upon it the designation of a sin offering in the

sin-offering cow,

namely, the red cow, which is female. Why, then, did Rabbi Shimon not say the same?

And we reject this:

The sin-offering cow

is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance do not effect substitution [

above, 13a ], and it is not sacrificed upon the altar. Thus, no sanctity of the offering itself rests upon it at all, and it may be redeemed without a defect [if one finds a more attractive animal than it ],

and its sanctity is only sanctity of value.

Therefore, it is impossible to say that the sanctity of the offering itself should take hold of this cow that the High Priest set aside for Yom Kippur because it possesses the designation of a sin offering through the sin-offering cow. [Although Scripture calls it a “sin offering” [see Ḥullin 11], and it has several laws like those of a sin offering, nevertheless, no sanctity of the offering itself rests upon it, and it is not an offering at all.]

And we challenge this: An ordinary person [ a non-High Priest, one who is not a prince ], whose sin offering is a female goat, who set aside a male goat for his female goat— it should become consecrated! For

there is a prince’s male goat,

which is a male goat brought as his sin offering.

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

it should become consecrated! For an ordinary person sets aside a female goat.

Why, then, did Rabbi Shimon not say the same?

And we reject this:

These are two bodies—

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—

it should become consecrated!

For it is one and the same person,

since if he had sinned now,

after his appointment,

he would be fit to bring a male goat.

And we reject this: Ultimately, he did not sin now, but when he was an ordinary person, and he was not obligated to bring a male goat. What he set aside as a male goat is therefore of no consequence; the sanctity of a sin offering did not take hold of it, and it does not effect substitution. And we challenge this: If so, here too, in the case of a wealthy person with leprosy, he does not bring a bird olah— he brings no bird olah at all, since he is wealthy . Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon hold that if he set aside a female animal for his olah, it effects substitution because it possesses the designation of an olah in the bird olah, when in the present case 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 with leprosy, but of a voluntary olah, and

Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya—

As we learned,

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

“

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,

the blemished animals and the rest of the property—

for Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance, even when they involve animals fit for the altar; nevertheless, the animals themselves are sacrificed upon the altar, as explained.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The intention of the one who consecrated his property was specifically to consecrate for the altar everything fit for the altar, and not for Temple maintenance. Rabbi Yehoshua further holds that his intention was to offer them as olot, which are more important than all other offerings because they are entirely burned upon the altar. Therefore, he holds:

The males themselves shall be sacrificed as olot,

the one who consecrated them shall himself offer them,

and the females,

which are unfit as olot—but which he nevertheless presumably consecrated for the purpose of an olah, as explained—therefore,

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

the one who consecrated them himself

olot with their proceeds, while the rest of the property shall go for Temple maintenance, so that his consecration for Temple maintenance is realized 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 likewise holds that the proceeds of the peace offerings are used for olot for the same reason—that he presumably consecrated them as olot—there is a difficulty:

the females,

how may they be sacrificed as peace offerings

by means of the fact that the treasurer sold them?

They come by virtue of a rejected consecration:

they were consecrated as olot, and we learned in our Mishna that a female animal separated as an olah may only be sent to graze until it develops a defect.

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

that he intends to say,

I consecrated them with the sanctity of the offering itself?

If so,

there is a difficulty:

Why should the females be sold for the needs of peace offerings?!

They should require

grazing,

as we learned in our Mishna, that one who separates a female animal for an olah must let it graze until it develops a defect.

He said to him—

Rabbi Yohanan

—:

Rabbi Yehoshua follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Anything that is not fit for him in its own right does not receive the sanctity of the offering itself.

As we learned

in our Mishna,

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

And we say

that the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s position

is

since a female animal is not fit for a guilt offering— the sanctity of the offering itself does not descend upon it .

Here too,

in the case of one who consecrates his property,

since a female animal is not fit as an olah, the sanctity of the offering itself does not descend upon it,

even not for the purpose of grazing.

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

I can say that Rabbi Shimon said with regard to

one who separates

a female animal for a guilt offering,