בתמורה – דנים שוגג כמזיד אבל לא בקדשים. הגמרא מביאה כמה הסברים שונים כדי להבין מהם מקרים של שוגג. באיזה קרבנות התמורה והולד קריבים כאותו קרבן? מניין דורשים את זה?
רוצה להקדיש לימוד?
תמורה יז
לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּתְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
in terms of it being permitted to shear its wool and to perform labor with it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah rendered the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution, as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. But it did not render the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to consecrated items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין.
Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration, and if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a tereifa, they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that substitution applies whether one substitutes unwittingly or intentionally? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall substitute his animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). The apparently superfluous term “shall be” serves to include the case of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally, with regard to substitution.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: כְּסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְהָמִיר. גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא לָקֵי.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which one who acts unwittingly is considered like one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution? Ḥizkiyya said: The circumstances are of one who thinks that it is permitted to substitute one animal for another. With regard to a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, and the individual is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, due to the inclusion of “shall be,” despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. But in the equivalent case, where one unwittingly sanctified an animal that was unfit to be an offering, he is not liable to receive lashes, as in this case one is liable to receive lashes only if he acted intentionally and with prior warning.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.
The Gemara cites an alternative version of Ḥizkiyya’s statement: With regard to a non-sacred animal that was declared a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, despite the fact that one acted unwittingly. But with regard to sacrificial animals, if it was consecrated unwittingly it is not consecrated.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan both state a different example of the ruling discussed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. They say that the case is of one who thinks to say: This animal shall be a substitute for a burnt offering that I own, but he unwittingly said: This animal shall be a substitute for a peace offering that I own. In such a case involving substitution he is liable to receive lashes, but if he erred in this manner with regard to consecration, he is exempt from lashes. The Gemara cites an alternative version: With regard to a substitute of a peace offering, if one unwittingly declared it a substitute, it is consecrated. With regard to sacrificial animals, if the animal was unwittingly consecrated, it is not consecrated.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״שָׁחוֹר״ וְאָמַר ״לָבָן״ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.
The Gemara cites another alternative version of the difference between substitution and consecration of an animal: The case is of one who thinks to say: The first black animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute, but he unwittingly said: The first white animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute. With regard to a substitute, the white animal is consecrated, and the individual therefore is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. Conversely, in a similar case of sacrificial animals, e.g., one meant to say: The first blemished black animal that comes out of my house shall be consecrated, but he unwittingly said: The first blemished white animal shall be consecrated, if a white animal came out of his house, the animal is not consecrated, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״תֵּצֵא זוֹ וְתִיכָּנֵס זוֹ״. גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים, בְּאוֹמֵר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶם מוּם נֶאֱכָלִין בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן — לָא לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says another case of unwitting substitution of an animal. This is referring to a case of one who says: Let this animal emerge from its sanctity and become non-sacred, and let that animal enter in its place and become consecrated. This person acted unwittingly, because he mistakenly thought that in this manner the consecrated animal would no longer be sacred. With regard to a similar case involving sacrificial animals, where he has a sacrificial animal that developed a blemish and he incorrectly says: Any animals that have developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption, and he proceeded to eat the animal without first redeeming it, he is not liable to receive lashes. But with regard to a substitute, if he did this he would be liable to receive lashes, as stated above.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״אֶכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת זֶה וְאַקְדִּישׁ״ וְאָמִיר מִדַּעְתִּי, וְנִכְנַס וְהֵמִיר וְהִקְדִּישׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.
Rav Sheshet says yet another example of unwittingly performing substitution: It is referring to a case of one who says: I will enter this house and consecrate an animal intentionally, or: I will enter this house and substitute an animal intentionally, and he entered and substituted or consecrated unintentionally, i.e., he acted absentmindedly. For his transgression with regard to substitution he is liable to receive lashes, and for his transgression with regard to sacrificial animals he is not liable to receive lashes.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם וְהַטְּרֵפָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal, are neither sacred through consecration nor do they sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sanctified by substitution, i.e., if one said that an animal in any of these categories should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sanctified. And the clause that they do not sanctify non-sacred animals means that if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, בְּמַקְדִּישׁ וָלָד וְיָצָא [דֶּרֶךְ] דּוֹפֶן. אֲבָל כִּלְאַיִם וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since these animals do not become sanctified, how can it even be suggested that they could sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find that the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it became a tereifa, or when one sanctifies a fetus and it emerged from the womb by caesarean section. But with regard to an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, you can find this ruling only in a case of the offspring of consecrated female animals, which have sanctity without an act of consecration. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לָא קָרְבָה וְלָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, אַף הָנָךְ לָא קָרְבִי וְלָא נָחֲתָא לְהוּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? He holds that the halakhot of these categories of animal is like that of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed as an offering and inherent sanctity does not rest upon it, so too, these animals in the categories of a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite may not be sacrificed as offerings and inherent sanctity does not rest upon them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלָא קָרֵיב, וְנָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּעַל מוּם קָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ. אִי הָכִי, טְרֵפָה נָמֵי קָא קָרְבָה בְּמִינָהּ!
Rav Pappa said to Rava: But why aren’t animals in these categories compared to a blemished animal, which may not be sacrificed as an offering but nevertheless inherent sanctity does rest upon it? Rava said to Rav Pappa in response: Although a blemished animal is not sacrificed on the altar, another animal of its same type, i.e., an unblemished animal, is sacrificed as an offering. By contrast, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite may never be sacrificed. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, what will you say about a tereifa, as other animals of its type are sacrificed. According to your explanation, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, אַף כֹּל פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דִּפְסוּל חִסָּרוֹן נִינְהוּ.
Rather, Rava retracts his previous answer and instead says: The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal, in the following manner: Just as the category of a non-kosher domesticated animal is an inherent disqualification, and such an animal cannot be sanctified or render another animal sanctified, so too the same applies to any other category of animal that is an inherent disqualification, such as a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite. This serves to exclude blemished animals, which are disqualified only because they lack certain limbs.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲלֹא ״שָׂרוּעַ״ וְ״קָלוּט״ כְּתִיב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וְהָא הָנֵי פְּסוּל הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ!
Rav Adda raised a difficulty with regard to this answer and said to Rava: Is the disqualification of a blemished animal always because it is lacking a limb? But isn’t the phrase: Too long or closed hooves, written in the passage of the Torah addressing blemishes that disqualify an animal; and these are inherent disqualifications. The verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or closed hooves, you may offer for a voluntary offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23).
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה [טְמֵאָה], מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, אַף כֹּל דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּהָא אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ.
Rather, Rava again retracted his previous answer and said: The explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is as I explained initially. The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type, so too these halakhot apply to any animal that is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, because other animals of its type are sacrificed on the altar.
מַאי אָמְרַתְּ: טְרֵפָה אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ? לָא דָּמְיָא לְבַעַל מוּם, בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, וּטְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
What did you say to challenge this explanation? You said that in the case of a tereifa, there are other animals of its type that are sacrificed, and if so, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa? The answer is that a tereifa is not similar to a blemished animal, as a non-kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, and a tereifa is forbidden for consumption. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, which is permitted for consumption.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַטְּרֵיפָה צְרִיכָה מוּם קָבוּעַ לִפְדּוֹת עָלָיו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים?
§ With regard to a tereifa, Shmuel says: One who consecrates an animal that is a tereifa is required to wait until it develops a permanent blemish, on account of which he may redeem it. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this statement of Shmuel. Since the meat of a tereifa is unfit for consumption and may only be fed to the dogs, why does it require redemption? Should one learn from this that one redeems sacrificial animals in order to feed them to the dogs? But this is contrary to the accepted halakha (see 31a).
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹשָׂה קְדוּשָּׁה (לְמִיתָה, כְּסָבוּר מוּתָּר לְהַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ) לָמוּת, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים בִּלְבַד.
Rather, say that the statement of Shmuel was as follows: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, it becomes sanctified until it is time for the animal to die, so that even after its death it must be buried and may not be redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya says: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, this is like nothing other than one who consecrates mere wood and stones, which cannot become sanctified with inherent sanctity but only for their value, and which therefore can be redeemed. Consequently, a consecrated tereifa animal may be redeemed even if it is going to be fed to the dogs.
תְּנַן: כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה, אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים. טַעְמָא שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ, הָא הָיוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן! דִּלְמָא הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְגוּפַהּ, לָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel. We learned in a mishna (31a): With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifa, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, because their consumption is forbidden; and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to the dogs. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason that they may not be redeemed is because they became tereifa after they had already been consecrated. Consequently, if they were already tereifa from the outset, when they were consecrated, one may redeem them. The Gemara answers: Perhaps this tanna holds that anywhere that an animal itself is not fit for sacrifice, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it at all.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן, וּטְרֵיפָה, וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.
The Gemara raises another challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from the mishna. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. And Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sacred with regard to substitution, i.e., if one said that any of these animals should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal it does not become sanctified; and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals, i.e., if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.
וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, הָא הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since they do not become sanctified, how can they sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa. The Gemara explains the difficulty: This indicates that if it was a tereifa from the outset, then inherent sanctity does not rest upon it; this ruling contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who says that such an animal must be buried when it dies.
אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּלְמָא הָךְ תַּנָּא נָמֵי סָבַר כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְגוּפַהּ — לָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have said to you: Perhaps this tanna also holds that anywhere that an animal is not fit itself for sacrificing, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it. Shmuel himself holds in accordance with those who disagree with this opinion.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ יֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁוַּולְדוֹתֵיהֶן וּתְמוּרוֹתֵיהֶן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, וְלַד שְׁלָמִים וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי הֵן שְׁלָמִים, וּטְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.
MISHNA: These are the sacrificial animals for which the halakhic status of their offspring and substitutes is like their own halakhic status: The offspring of peace offerings, and their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring or their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time [ad sof kol ha’olam]. They are all endowed with the sanctity and halakhic status of peace offerings, and therefore they require placing hands on the head of the animal, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh in order to give them to the priest.
גְּמָ׳ כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא ״וְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן״, ״עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם״ לְמָה לִי? תַּנָּא דִידַן שַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר ״וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים״, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ תַּנָּא דִידַן: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בִּוְולָדָן דְּלָא מוֹדֵינָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם לָא מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the tanna already taught: The offspring of the offspring or the substitute and the offspring of their offspring, why do I need him to state: Until the end of all time? The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna heard that Rabbi Elazar said in the next mishna that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering, but rather it is sequestered and left to die, and the tanna of our mishna said to him: It is not necessary to state with regard to their offspring that I do not concede to you, as I maintain that it is sacrificed upon the altar as a peace offering, but even with regard to all of the offsprings until the end of time I do not concede to you, as I rule that they are all sacrificed as peace offerings.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד.
§ With regard to the mishna’s statement that the halakhic status of the offspring of peace offerings and their substitutes are like that of the peace offering itself, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he offer of the herd, if male if female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). Since the verse already states: “If he offer of the herd,” the words “if male if female” are unnecessary. Rather, the word “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering as having the the same halakhic status as a peace offering.
וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: וּמָה תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ — קְרֵיבָה, וָלָד, שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּקְרַב?
The baraita objects: But could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If a substitute of a peace offering, which is lenient in that it is not grown from consecrated property, i.e., it is not the offspring of a sacrifical animal, is sacrificed as a peace offering, then with regard to the offspring of a peace offering, which is more stringent since it is grown from consecrated property, is it not logical that it be sacrificed as a peace offering?
מָה לִתְמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, תֹּאמַר בְּוָלָד, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים? אֵינוֹ קָרֵב הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד, ״נְקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַתְּמוּרָה.
The baraita responds that this a fortiori inference may be refuted: What is unique about the halakhic status of a substitute? It is unique in that the halakha of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals that belong to an individual, and therefore the substitute of a peace offering is offered as a peace offering. Shall you say the same with regard to the offspring, which is more lenient in that it does not apply to all sacrificial animals, as some are male and do not give birth, and therefore there is reason to say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering, since the halakha with regard to the sanctity of the offspring does not apply to all sacrificial animals? Therefore, the verse states the word “male” to include the offspring, and it states the word “female” to include the substitute of a peace offering, indicating that both have the status of a peace offering.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא תְּמוּרַת תְּמִימִין, וּוְלַד תְּמִימִין, וְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וּתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם זָכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת וְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, ״אִם נְקֵבָה״ לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
I have derived only that the substitute of an unblemished peace offering and the offspring of an unblemished peace offering have the status of a peace offering. From where do I derive that the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals which are themselves unblemished have the status of peace offerings? The verse states in a more expanded form: “If male,” to include the offspring of blemished animals, and “if female,” to include the substitute of blemished animals.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבְּתָה תְּמוּרַת תְּמִימִין נִתְרַבְּתָה תְּמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rav Safra said to Abaye: But why should I not reverse the interpretations and say that the words “if male” serve to include the substitute of blemished animals, and the words “if female” serve to include the offspring of blemished animals? Abaye responds: It stands to reason that from the same place that the substitute of unblemished animals is included, i.e., from the word “female,” the substitute of blemished animals is also included, i.e., from the expanded form “if female.” Likewise, since the word “male” teaches that the offspring of an unblemished peace offering is included, the offspring of a blemished peace offering is included from the phrase “if male.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ לֵיפוֹךְ ״אִם זָכָר״ ״אִם נְקֵבָה״? אֲנָא כּוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא קָאָמֵינָא! אֵימָא: ״זָכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַתְּמוּרָה, ״נְקֵבָה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וָלָד״ לְשׁוֹן זָכָר מַשְׁמַע, ״תְּמוּרָה״ לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה מַשְׁמַע.
Rav Safra said to Abaye in explanation of his question: Did I say to you to reverse the interpretations of the phrases “if male” and “if female”? I actually said that the interpretation of the entire verse should be reversed as follows: Say that the word “male” serves to include the substitute of both a blemished and an unblemished offering, and the word “female” serves to include the offspring of both a blemished and an unblemished offering. Abaye said to him in response: It is logical to interpret the verse as the baraita does, as the word offspring [valad] indicates a masculine form, while the word substitute [temura] indicates a feminine form.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיקְרַב, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
§ The baraita stated that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? Shmuel said: It is relevant with regard to sacrificing it on the altar as a peace offering, even though its mother is blemished and disqualified for the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who rules that if one sets aside a female animal for a burnt offering, and that animal gave birth to a male, the offspring is offered as a burnt offering, even though its mother may not be offered as a burnt offering (see 18b).
דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר עוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֲבָל הָנֵי וְלָדוֹת לָא קָרְבִי — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita therefore teaches that the same is true with regard to the offspring of a blemished peace offering. And although Rabbi Elazar already stated this principle, it was necessary for the baraita to repeat it in this case, lest you say that when Rabbi Elazar says his opinion, it is only with regard to a burnt offering, due to the fact that there the discrepancy between mother and offspring is their sex, and there is burnt offering status for females, i.e., the case of a bird that is the same sex as its mother, as one may sacrifice a female bird burnt offering. But perhaps these offspring of a blemished peace offering are not sacrificed, as there is no case of a blemished animal that may be offered as a peace offering. Therefore, it teaches us that even these offspring may be sacrificed.
בַּר פְּדָא אָמַר: לִרְעִיָּה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. דְּאִתְּמַר: רָבָא אָמַר: לִיקְרַב, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לִרְעִיָּה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.
Bar Padda said: The statement of the baraita that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering is relevant only with regard to grazing the animal until it develops a blemish, after which it may be redeemed and the money used to bring a burnt offering. But the animal itself may not be sacrificed on the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with all opinions. As it was stated that the following amora’im disagreed about the same point as did Shmuel and bar Padda: Rava said that the offspring of a blemished offering is consecrated with regard to sacrificing it upon the altar, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas Rav Pappa said that this halakha applies only with regard to grazing, and this is in accordance with all opinions.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא.
§ In the baraita, the halakha governing the substitute and offspring of a peace offering is derived from the superfluous words “male” and “female.” The Gemara notes: But this tanna cites the source of this halakha from here: “Only the holy things you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose; and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:26–27).
״רָק קֳדָשֶׁיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ תְּמוּרוֹת, ״אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לָךְ״ — אֵלּוּ הַוְּולָדוֹת, ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאת״.
With regard to the words: “Only your holy things,” these are the substitutes; “that you have,” these are the offspring. And with regard to these, it states: “You shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose,” i.e., they must be brought to the Temple as offerings.
יָכוֹל יַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עוֹלוֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בְּעוֹלָה — אַתָּה נוֹהֵג בִּתְמוּרָה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בִּשְׁלָמִים — אַתָּה נוֹהֵג בְּוַולְדֵי שְׁלָמִים וּבִתְמוּרָה.
One might have thought that one should bring them into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.” This indicates that in the manner that you treat a burnt offering, you should treat the substitute of a burnt offering, and in the manner that you treat a peace offering, you should treat the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering.
יָכוֹל כׇּל קָדָשִׁים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רַק״ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה׳״ — הוּא קָרֵב, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה.
One might have thought that this is the halakha with regard to all sacrificial animals, i.e., that their substitutes and offspring are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” which, as the Gemara will explain shortly, excludes certain offspring from this principle. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word “only” is unnecessary, as it states with regard to a guilt offering: “It is a guilt offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). The term “It is [hu],” indicates that only it, the guilt offering itself, is sacrificed upon the altar, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
אָמַר מָר: ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאת״, יָכוֹל יַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה?
§ The Master said above: Due to the phrase in the verse “You shall take and go,” one might have thought that one should bring the substitute and offspring into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.”
מְנָא תֵּיתֵי הָא? כֵּיוָן דְּגָמְרִי חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, הָנָךְ מִקְרָב קָרְבִי!
The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that these animals should be brought into the Temple and then left to die? Since the halakha that five sin offering are left to die is learned through a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the offspring of a sin offering and the substitute of a sin offering are included among those five, it would have been reasonable to conclude that only those sin offerings are left to die, but these animals, the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering, are sacrificed upon the altar.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְהָנָךְ יָמוּתוּ בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, lest you say that these five sin offerings may be left to die in any location, but these, the offspring and substitute of a peace offering, must be left to die specifically in the Temple. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so, as the offspring and substitute of a peace offering may be offered upon the altar.
אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אַף כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ״. וָלָד דְּמַאן? אִי דְּעוֹלָה — זָכָר הוּא, וְלָאו בַּר אוֹלוֹדֵי הוּא! וְאִי דְּחַטָּאת — גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה קָיְימִי!
§ The master said above: One might have thought that this is the halakha even with regard to all sacrificial animals that their substitutes and offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar just as the sacrificial animals themselves are. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” indicating that this principle does not apply equally in all cases. The Gemara asks: The offspring of which offering is referred to here? If it is referring to the offspring of a burnt offering, a burnt offering is male, and is therefore not capable of giving birth. And if it is referring to the offspring or substitute of a sin offering, it is learned as a tradition that such an animal is left to die.
לעקוב 
חדשה בלימוד הגמרא?
זה הדף הראשון שלך? איזו התרגשות עצומה! יש לנו בדיוק את התכנים והכלים שיעזרו לך לעשות את הצעדים הראשונים ללמידה בקצב וברמה שלך, כך תוכלי להרגיש בנוח גם בתוך הסוגיות המורכבות ומאתגרות.
פסיפס הלומדות שלנו
גלי את קהילת הלומדות שלנו, מגוון נשים, רקעים וסיפורים. כולן חלק מתנועה ומסע מרגש ועוצמתי.
התחלתי ללמוד בסבב הנוכחי לפני כשנתיים .הסביבה מתפעלת ותומכת מאוד. אני משתדלת ללמוד מכל ההסכתים הנוספים שיש באתר הדרן. אני עורכת כל סיום מסכת שיעור בביתי לכ20 נשים שמחכות בקוצר רוח למפגשים האלו.
יעל אשר
יהוד, ישראל
התחלתי לפני 8 שנים במדרשה. לאחרונה סיימתי מסכת תענית בלמידה עצמית ועכשיו לקראת סיום מסכת מגילה.
דניאלה ברוכים
רעננה, ישראל
התחלתי כשהייתי בחופש, עם הפרסומים על תחילת המחזור, הסביבה קיבלה את זה כמשהו מתמיד ומשמעותי ובהערכה, הלימוד זה עוגן יציב ביום יום, יש שבועות יותר ויש שפחות אבל זה משהו שנמצא שם אמין ובעל משמעות בחיים שלי….
עדי דיאמנט
גמזו, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בשנת המדרשה במגדל עוז, בינתיים נהנית מאוד מהלימוד ומהגמרא, מעניין ומשמח מאוד!
משתדלת להצליח לעקוב כל יום, לפעמים משלימה קצת בהמשך השבוע.. מרגישה שיש עוגן מקובע ביום שלי והוא משמח מאוד!
אוריה קסנר
חיפה , ישראל
התחלתי בסיום הש”ס, יצאתי באורות. נשברתי פעמיים, ובשתיהם הרבנית מישל עודדה להמשיך איפה שכולם בסבב ולהשלים כשאוכל, וכך עשיתי וכיום השלמתי הכל. מדהים אותי שאני לומדת כל יום קצת, אפילו בחדר הלידה, בבידוד או בחו”ל. לאט לאט יותר נינוחה בסוגיות. לא כולם מבינים את הרצון, בפרט כפמניסטית. חשה סיפוק גדול להכיר את המושגים וצורת החשיבה. החלום זה להמשיך ולהתמיד ובמקביל ללמוד איך מהסוגיות נוצרה והתפתחה ההלכה.
קרן וינגרטן שרינגטון
מודיעין, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי בסבב הקודם. זכיתי לסיים אותו במעמד המרגש של הדרן. בסבב הראשון ליווה אותי הספק, שאולי לא אצליח לעמוד בקצב ולהתמיד. בסבב השני אני לומדת ברוגע, מתוך אמונה ביכולתי ללמוד ולסיים. בסבב הלימוד הראשון ליוותה אותי חוויה מסויימת של בדידות. הדרן העניקה לי קהילת לימוד ואחוות נשים. החוויה של סיום הש”ס במעמד כה גדול כשנשים שאינן מכירות אותי, שמחות ומתרגשות עבורי , היתה חוויה מרוממת נפש
אילנית ווייל
קיבוץ מגדל עוז, ישראל
הייתי לפני שנתיים בסיום הדרן נשים בבנייני האומה והחלטתי להתחיל. אפילו רק כמה דפים, אולי רק פרק, אולי רק מסכת… בינתיים סיימתי רבע שס ותכף את כל סדר מועד בה.
הסביבה תומכת ומפרגנת. אני בת יחידה עם ארבעה אחים שכולם לומדים דף יומי. מדי פעם אנחנו עושים סיומים יחד באירועים משפחתיים. ממש מרגש. מסכת שבת סיימנו כולנו יחד עם אבא שלנו!
אני שומעת כל יום פודקאסט בהליכה או בנסיעה ואחכ לומדת את הגמרא.
עדנה גרוס
מרכז שפירא, ישראל
אחי, שלומד דף יומי ממסכת ברכות, חיפש חברותא ללימוד מסכת ראש השנה והציע לי. החברותא היתה מאתגרת טכנית ורוב הזמן נעשתה דרך הטלפון, כך שבסיום המסכת נפרדו דרכינו. אחי חזר ללמוד לבד, אבל אני כבר נכבשתי בקסם הגמרא ושכנעתי את האיש שלי להצטרף אלי למסכת ביצה. מאז המשכנו הלאה, ועכשיו אנחנו מתרגשים לקראתו של סדר נשים!
שולמית סבן
נוקדים, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד לפני 4.5 שנים, כשהודיה חברה שלי פתחה קבוצת ווטסאפ ללימוד דף יומי בתחילת מסכת סנהדרין. מאז לימוד הדף נכנס לתוך היום-יום שלי והפך לאחד ממגדירי הזהות שלי ממש.
קרן רוזנברג
ירושלים, ישראל
אחרי שראיתי את הסיום הנשי של הדף היומי בבנייני האומה זה ריגש אותי ועורר בי את הרצון להצטרף. לא למדתי גמרא קודם לכן בכלל, אז הכל היה לי חדש, ולכן אני לומדת בעיקר מהשיעורים פה בהדרן, בשוטנשטיין או בחוברות ושיננתם.
רבקה שלוס
בית שמש, ישראל
התחלתי מחוג במסכת קידושין שהעבירה הרבנית רייסנר במסגרת בית המדרש כלנה בגבעת שמואל; לאחר מכן התחיל סבב הדף היומי אז הצטרפתי. לסביבה לקח זמן לעכל אבל היום כולם תומכים ומשתתפים איתי. הלימוד לעתים מעניין ומעשיר ולעתים קשה ואף הזוי… אך אני ממשיכה קדימה. הוא משפיע על היומיום שלי קודם כל במרדף אחרי הדף, וגם במושגים הרבים שלמדתי ובידע שהועשרתי בו, חלקו ממש מעשי
אביגיל כריסי
ראש העין, ישראל
רציתי לקבל ידע בתחום שהרגשתי שהוא גדול וחשוב אך נעלם ממני. הלימוד מעניק אתגר וסיפוק ומעמיק את תחושת השייכות שלי לתורה וליהדות
רות עגיב
עלי זהב – לשם, ישראל
התחלתי לפני כמה שנים אבל רק בסבב הזה זכיתי ללמוד יום יום ולסיים מסכתות
סיגל טל
רעננה, ישראל
שמעתי על הסיום הענק של הדף היומי ע”י נשים בבנייני האומה. רציתי גם.
החלטתי להצטרף. התחלתי ושיכנעתי את בעלי ועוד שתי חברות להצטרף. עכשיו יש לי לימוד משותף איתו בשבת ומפגש חודשי איתן בנושא (והתכתבויות תדירות על דברים מיוחדים שקראנו). הצטרפנו לקבוצות שונות בווטסאפ. אנחנו ממש נהנות. אני שומעת את השיעור מידי יום (בד”כ מהרב יוני גוטמן) וקוראת ומצטרפת לסיומים של הדרן. גם מקפידה על דף משלהן (ונהנית מאד).
ליאת סיטרון
אפרת, ישראל
התחלתי מעט לפני תחילת הסבב הנוכחי. אני נהנית מהאתגר של להמשיך להתמיד, מרגעים של "אהה, מפה זה הגיע!” ומהאתגר האינטלקטואלי
אילת-חן ודלר
לוד, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בשנת המדרשה במגדל עוז, בינתיים נהנית מאוד מהלימוד ומהגמרא, מעניין ומשמח מאוד!
משתדלת להצליח לעקוב כל יום, לפעמים משלימה קצת בהמשך השבוע.. מרגישה שיש עוגן מקובע ביום שלי והוא משמח מאוד!
אוריה קסנר
חיפה , ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי לפני שנתיים, עם מסכת שבת. בהתחלה ההתמדה היתה קשה אבל בזכות הקורונה והסגרים הצלחתי להדביק את הפערים בשבתות הארוכות, לסיים את מסכת שבת ולהמשיך עם המסכתות הבאות. עכשיו אני מסיימת בהתרגשות רבה את מסכת חגיגה וסדר מועד ומחכה לסדר הבא!
אילנה שכנוביץ
מודיעין, ישראל
אני לומדת גמרא כעשור במסגרות שונות, ואת הדף היומי התחלתי כשחברה הציעה שאצטרף אליה לסיום בבנייני האומה. מאז אני לומדת עם פודקסט הדרן, משתדלת באופן יומי אך אם לא מספיקה, מדביקה פערים עד ערב שבת. בסבב הזה הלימוד הוא "ממעוף הציפור”, מקשיבה במהירות מוגברת תוך כדי פעילויות כמו בישול או נהיגה, וכך רוכשת היכרות עם הסוגיות ואופן ניתוחם על ידי חז”ל. בע”ה בסבב הבא, ואולי לפני, אצלול לתוכו באופן מעמיק יותר.
יעל ביר
רמת גן, ישראל
אחי, שלומד דף יומי ממסכת ברכות, חיפש חברותא ללימוד מסכת ראש השנה והציע לי. החברותא היתה מאתגרת טכנית ורוב הזמן נעשתה דרך הטלפון, כך שבסיום המסכת נפרדו דרכינו. אחי חזר ללמוד לבד, אבל אני כבר נכבשתי בקסם הגמרא ושכנעתי את האיש שלי להצטרף אלי למסכת ביצה. מאז המשכנו הלאה, ועכשיו אנחנו מתרגשים לקראתו של סדר נשים!
שולמית סבן
נוקדים, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד לפני 4.5 שנים, כשהודיה חברה שלי פתחה קבוצת ווטסאפ ללימוד דף יומי בתחילת מסכת סנהדרין. מאז לימוד הדף נכנס לתוך היום-יום שלי והפך לאחד ממגדירי הזהות שלי ממש.
קרן רוזנברג
ירושלים, ישראל
תמורה יז
לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּתְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
in terms of it being permitted to shear its wool and to perform labor with it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah rendered the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution, as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. But it did not render the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to consecrated items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין.
Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration, and if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a tereifa, they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that substitution applies whether one substitutes unwittingly or intentionally? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall substitute his animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). The apparently superfluous term “shall be” serves to include the case of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally, with regard to substitution.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: כְּסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְהָמִיר. גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא לָקֵי.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which one who acts unwittingly is considered like one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution? Ḥizkiyya said: The circumstances are of one who thinks that it is permitted to substitute one animal for another. With regard to a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, and the individual is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, due to the inclusion of “shall be,” despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. But in the equivalent case, where one unwittingly sanctified an animal that was unfit to be an offering, he is not liable to receive lashes, as in this case one is liable to receive lashes only if he acted intentionally and with prior warning.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.
The Gemara cites an alternative version of Ḥizkiyya’s statement: With regard to a non-sacred animal that was declared a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, despite the fact that one acted unwittingly. But with regard to sacrificial animals, if it was consecrated unwittingly it is not consecrated.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan both state a different example of the ruling discussed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. They say that the case is of one who thinks to say: This animal shall be a substitute for a burnt offering that I own, but he unwittingly said: This animal shall be a substitute for a peace offering that I own. In such a case involving substitution he is liable to receive lashes, but if he erred in this manner with regard to consecration, he is exempt from lashes. The Gemara cites an alternative version: With regard to a substitute of a peace offering, if one unwittingly declared it a substitute, it is consecrated. With regard to sacrificial animals, if the animal was unwittingly consecrated, it is not consecrated.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״שָׁחוֹר״ וְאָמַר ״לָבָן״ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.
The Gemara cites another alternative version of the difference between substitution and consecration of an animal: The case is of one who thinks to say: The first black animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute, but he unwittingly said: The first white animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute. With regard to a substitute, the white animal is consecrated, and the individual therefore is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. Conversely, in a similar case of sacrificial animals, e.g., one meant to say: The first blemished black animal that comes out of my house shall be consecrated, but he unwittingly said: The first blemished white animal shall be consecrated, if a white animal came out of his house, the animal is not consecrated, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״תֵּצֵא זוֹ וְתִיכָּנֵס זוֹ״. גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים, בְּאוֹמֵר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶם מוּם נֶאֱכָלִין בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן — לָא לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says another case of unwitting substitution of an animal. This is referring to a case of one who says: Let this animal emerge from its sanctity and become non-sacred, and let that animal enter in its place and become consecrated. This person acted unwittingly, because he mistakenly thought that in this manner the consecrated animal would no longer be sacred. With regard to a similar case involving sacrificial animals, where he has a sacrificial animal that developed a blemish and he incorrectly says: Any animals that have developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption, and he proceeded to eat the animal without first redeeming it, he is not liable to receive lashes. But with regard to a substitute, if he did this he would be liable to receive lashes, as stated above.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״אֶכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת זֶה וְאַקְדִּישׁ״ וְאָמִיר מִדַּעְתִּי, וְנִכְנַס וְהֵמִיר וְהִקְדִּישׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.
Rav Sheshet says yet another example of unwittingly performing substitution: It is referring to a case of one who says: I will enter this house and consecrate an animal intentionally, or: I will enter this house and substitute an animal intentionally, and he entered and substituted or consecrated unintentionally, i.e., he acted absentmindedly. For his transgression with regard to substitution he is liable to receive lashes, and for his transgression with regard to sacrificial animals he is not liable to receive lashes.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם וְהַטְּרֵפָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal, are neither sacred through consecration nor do they sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sanctified by substitution, i.e., if one said that an animal in any of these categories should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sanctified. And the clause that they do not sanctify non-sacred animals means that if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, בְּמַקְדִּישׁ וָלָד וְיָצָא [דֶּרֶךְ] דּוֹפֶן. אֲבָל כִּלְאַיִם וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since these animals do not become sanctified, how can it even be suggested that they could sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find that the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it became a tereifa, or when one sanctifies a fetus and it emerged from the womb by caesarean section. But with regard to an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, you can find this ruling only in a case of the offspring of consecrated female animals, which have sanctity without an act of consecration. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לָא קָרְבָה וְלָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, אַף הָנָךְ לָא קָרְבִי וְלָא נָחֲתָא לְהוּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? He holds that the halakhot of these categories of animal is like that of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed as an offering and inherent sanctity does not rest upon it, so too, these animals in the categories of a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite may not be sacrificed as offerings and inherent sanctity does not rest upon them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלָא קָרֵיב, וְנָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּעַל מוּם קָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ. אִי הָכִי, טְרֵפָה נָמֵי קָא קָרְבָה בְּמִינָהּ!
Rav Pappa said to Rava: But why aren’t animals in these categories compared to a blemished animal, which may not be sacrificed as an offering but nevertheless inherent sanctity does rest upon it? Rava said to Rav Pappa in response: Although a blemished animal is not sacrificed on the altar, another animal of its same type, i.e., an unblemished animal, is sacrificed as an offering. By contrast, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite may never be sacrificed. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, what will you say about a tereifa, as other animals of its type are sacrificed. According to your explanation, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, אַף כֹּל פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דִּפְסוּל חִסָּרוֹן נִינְהוּ.
Rather, Rava retracts his previous answer and instead says: The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal, in the following manner: Just as the category of a non-kosher domesticated animal is an inherent disqualification, and such an animal cannot be sanctified or render another animal sanctified, so too the same applies to any other category of animal that is an inherent disqualification, such as a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite. This serves to exclude blemished animals, which are disqualified only because they lack certain limbs.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲלֹא ״שָׂרוּעַ״ וְ״קָלוּט״ כְּתִיב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וְהָא הָנֵי פְּסוּל הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ!
Rav Adda raised a difficulty with regard to this answer and said to Rava: Is the disqualification of a blemished animal always because it is lacking a limb? But isn’t the phrase: Too long or closed hooves, written in the passage of the Torah addressing blemishes that disqualify an animal; and these are inherent disqualifications. The verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or closed hooves, you may offer for a voluntary offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23).
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה [טְמֵאָה], מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, אַף כֹּל דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּהָא אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ.
Rather, Rava again retracted his previous answer and said: The explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is as I explained initially. The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type, so too these halakhot apply to any animal that is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, because other animals of its type are sacrificed on the altar.
מַאי אָמְרַתְּ: טְרֵפָה אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ? לָא דָּמְיָא לְבַעַל מוּם, בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, וּטְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
What did you say to challenge this explanation? You said that in the case of a tereifa, there are other animals of its type that are sacrificed, and if so, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa? The answer is that a tereifa is not similar to a blemished animal, as a non-kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, and a tereifa is forbidden for consumption. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, which is permitted for consumption.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַטְּרֵיפָה צְרִיכָה מוּם קָבוּעַ לִפְדּוֹת עָלָיו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים?
§ With regard to a tereifa, Shmuel says: One who consecrates an animal that is a tereifa is required to wait until it develops a permanent blemish, on account of which he may redeem it. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this statement of Shmuel. Since the meat of a tereifa is unfit for consumption and may only be fed to the dogs, why does it require redemption? Should one learn from this that one redeems sacrificial animals in order to feed them to the dogs? But this is contrary to the accepted halakha (see 31a).
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹשָׂה קְדוּשָּׁה (לְמִיתָה, כְּסָבוּר מוּתָּר לְהַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ) לָמוּת, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים בִּלְבַד.
Rather, say that the statement of Shmuel was as follows: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, it becomes sanctified until it is time for the animal to die, so that even after its death it must be buried and may not be redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya says: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, this is like nothing other than one who consecrates mere wood and stones, which cannot become sanctified with inherent sanctity but only for their value, and which therefore can be redeemed. Consequently, a consecrated tereifa animal may be redeemed even if it is going to be fed to the dogs.
תְּנַן: כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה, אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים. טַעְמָא שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ, הָא הָיוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן! דִּלְמָא הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְגוּפַהּ, לָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel. We learned in a mishna (31a): With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifa, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, because their consumption is forbidden; and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to the dogs. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason that they may not be redeemed is because they became tereifa after they had already been consecrated. Consequently, if they were already tereifa from the outset, when they were consecrated, one may redeem them. The Gemara answers: Perhaps this tanna holds that anywhere that an animal itself is not fit for sacrifice, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it at all.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן, וּטְרֵיפָה, וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.
The Gemara raises another challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from the mishna. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. And Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sacred with regard to substitution, i.e., if one said that any of these animals should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal it does not become sanctified; and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals, i.e., if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.
וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, הָא הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since they do not become sanctified, how can they sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa. The Gemara explains the difficulty: This indicates that if it was a tereifa from the outset, then inherent sanctity does not rest upon it; this ruling contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who says that such an animal must be buried when it dies.
אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּלְמָא הָךְ תַּנָּא נָמֵי סָבַר כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְגוּפַהּ — לָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
The Gemara explains that Shmuel could have said to you: Perhaps this tanna also holds that anywhere that an animal is not fit itself for sacrificing, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it. Shmuel himself holds in accordance with those who disagree with this opinion.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ יֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁוַּולְדוֹתֵיהֶן וּתְמוּרוֹתֵיהֶן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, וְלַד שְׁלָמִים וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי הֵן שְׁלָמִים, וּטְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.
MISHNA: These are the sacrificial animals for which the halakhic status of their offspring and substitutes is like their own halakhic status: The offspring of peace offerings, and their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring or their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time [ad sof kol ha’olam]. They are all endowed with the sanctity and halakhic status of peace offerings, and therefore they require placing hands on the head of the animal, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh in order to give them to the priest.
גְּמָ׳ כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא ״וְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן״, ״עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם״ לְמָה לִי? תַּנָּא דִידַן שַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר ״וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים״, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ תַּנָּא דִידַן: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בִּוְולָדָן דְּלָא מוֹדֵינָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם לָא מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the tanna already taught: The offspring of the offspring or the substitute and the offspring of their offspring, why do I need him to state: Until the end of all time? The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna heard that Rabbi Elazar said in the next mishna that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering, but rather it is sequestered and left to die, and the tanna of our mishna said to him: It is not necessary to state with regard to their offspring that I do not concede to you, as I maintain that it is sacrificed upon the altar as a peace offering, but even with regard to all of the offsprings until the end of time I do not concede to you, as I rule that they are all sacrificed as peace offerings.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד.
§ With regard to the mishna’s statement that the halakhic status of the offspring of peace offerings and their substitutes are like that of the peace offering itself, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he offer of the herd, if male if female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). Since the verse already states: “If he offer of the herd,” the words “if male if female” are unnecessary. Rather, the word “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering as having the the same halakhic status as a peace offering.
וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: וּמָה תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ — קְרֵיבָה, וָלָד, שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּקְרַב?
The baraita objects: But could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If a substitute of a peace offering, which is lenient in that it is not grown from consecrated property, i.e., it is not the offspring of a sacrifical animal, is sacrificed as a peace offering, then with regard to the offspring of a peace offering, which is more stringent since it is grown from consecrated property, is it not logical that it be sacrificed as a peace offering?
מָה לִתְמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, תֹּאמַר בְּוָלָד, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים? אֵינוֹ קָרֵב הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד, ״נְקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַתְּמוּרָה.
The baraita responds that this a fortiori inference may be refuted: What is unique about the halakhic status of a substitute? It is unique in that the halakha of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals that belong to an individual, and therefore the substitute of a peace offering is offered as a peace offering. Shall you say the same with regard to the offspring, which is more lenient in that it does not apply to all sacrificial animals, as some are male and do not give birth, and therefore there is reason to say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering, since the halakha with regard to the sanctity of the offspring does not apply to all sacrificial animals? Therefore, the verse states the word “male” to include the offspring, and it states the word “female” to include the substitute of a peace offering, indicating that both have the status of a peace offering.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא תְּמוּרַת תְּמִימִין, וּוְלַד תְּמִימִין, וְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וּתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם זָכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת וְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, ״אִם נְקֵבָה״ לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
I have derived only that the substitute of an unblemished peace offering and the offspring of an unblemished peace offering have the status of a peace offering. From where do I derive that the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals which are themselves unblemished have the status of peace offerings? The verse states in a more expanded form: “If male,” to include the offspring of blemished animals, and “if female,” to include the substitute of blemished animals.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבְּתָה תְּמוּרַת תְּמִימִין נִתְרַבְּתָה תְּמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rav Safra said to Abaye: But why should I not reverse the interpretations and say that the words “if male” serve to include the substitute of blemished animals, and the words “if female” serve to include the offspring of blemished animals? Abaye responds: It stands to reason that from the same place that the substitute of unblemished animals is included, i.e., from the word “female,” the substitute of blemished animals is also included, i.e., from the expanded form “if female.” Likewise, since the word “male” teaches that the offspring of an unblemished peace offering is included, the offspring of a blemished peace offering is included from the phrase “if male.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ לֵיפוֹךְ ״אִם זָכָר״ ״אִם נְקֵבָה״? אֲנָא כּוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא קָאָמֵינָא! אֵימָא: ״זָכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַתְּמוּרָה, ״נְקֵבָה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וָלָד״ לְשׁוֹן זָכָר מַשְׁמַע, ״תְּמוּרָה״ לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה מַשְׁמַע.
Rav Safra said to Abaye in explanation of his question: Did I say to you to reverse the interpretations of the phrases “if male” and “if female”? I actually said that the interpretation of the entire verse should be reversed as follows: Say that the word “male” serves to include the substitute of both a blemished and an unblemished offering, and the word “female” serves to include the offspring of both a blemished and an unblemished offering. Abaye said to him in response: It is logical to interpret the verse as the baraita does, as the word offspring [valad] indicates a masculine form, while the word substitute [temura] indicates a feminine form.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיקְרַב, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
§ The baraita stated that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? Shmuel said: It is relevant with regard to sacrificing it on the altar as a peace offering, even though its mother is blemished and disqualified for the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who rules that if one sets aside a female animal for a burnt offering, and that animal gave birth to a male, the offspring is offered as a burnt offering, even though its mother may not be offered as a burnt offering (see 18b).
דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר עוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֲבָל הָנֵי וְלָדוֹת לָא קָרְבִי — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita therefore teaches that the same is true with regard to the offspring of a blemished peace offering. And although Rabbi Elazar already stated this principle, it was necessary for the baraita to repeat it in this case, lest you say that when Rabbi Elazar says his opinion, it is only with regard to a burnt offering, due to the fact that there the discrepancy between mother and offspring is their sex, and there is burnt offering status for females, i.e., the case of a bird that is the same sex as its mother, as one may sacrifice a female bird burnt offering. But perhaps these offspring of a blemished peace offering are not sacrificed, as there is no case of a blemished animal that may be offered as a peace offering. Therefore, it teaches us that even these offspring may be sacrificed.
בַּר פְּדָא אָמַר: לִרְעִיָּה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. דְּאִתְּמַר: רָבָא אָמַר: לִיקְרַב, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לִרְעִיָּה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.
Bar Padda said: The statement of the baraita that the offspring of a blemished peace offering has the status of a peace offering is relevant only with regard to grazing the animal until it develops a blemish, after which it may be redeemed and the money used to bring a burnt offering. But the animal itself may not be sacrificed on the altar. And the baraita is in accordance with all opinions. As it was stated that the following amora’im disagreed about the same point as did Shmuel and bar Padda: Rava said that the offspring of a blemished offering is consecrated with regard to sacrificing it upon the altar, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas Rav Pappa said that this halakha applies only with regard to grazing, and this is in accordance with all opinions.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא.
§ In the baraita, the halakha governing the substitute and offspring of a peace offering is derived from the superfluous words “male” and “female.” The Gemara notes: But this tanna cites the source of this halakha from here: “Only the holy things you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose; and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:26–27).
״רָק קֳדָשֶׁיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ תְּמוּרוֹת, ״אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לָךְ״ — אֵלּוּ הַוְּולָדוֹת, ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאת״.
With regard to the words: “Only your holy things,” these are the substitutes; “that you have,” these are the offspring. And with regard to these, it states: “You shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose,” i.e., they must be brought to the Temple as offerings.
יָכוֹל יַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עוֹלוֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בְּעוֹלָה — אַתָּה נוֹהֵג בִּתְמוּרָה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בִּשְׁלָמִים — אַתָּה נוֹהֵג בְּוַולְדֵי שְׁלָמִים וּבִתְמוּרָה.
One might have thought that one should bring them into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.” This indicates that in the manner that you treat a burnt offering, you should treat the substitute of a burnt offering, and in the manner that you treat a peace offering, you should treat the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering.
יָכוֹל כׇּל קָדָשִׁים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רַק״ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה׳״ — הוּא קָרֵב, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה.
One might have thought that this is the halakha with regard to all sacrificial animals, i.e., that their substitutes and offspring are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” which, as the Gemara will explain shortly, excludes certain offspring from this principle. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word “only” is unnecessary, as it states with regard to a guilt offering: “It is a guilt offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). The term “It is [hu],” indicates that only it, the guilt offering itself, is sacrificed upon the altar, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
אָמַר מָר: ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאת״, יָכוֹל יַכְנִיסֶנּוּ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה?
§ The Master said above: Due to the phrase in the verse “You shall take and go,” one might have thought that one should bring the substitute and offspring into the Temple but withhold water and food from them so that they die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God.”
מְנָא תֵּיתֵי הָא? כֵּיוָן דְּגָמְרִי חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת, הָנָךְ מִקְרָב קָרְבִי!
The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that these animals should be brought into the Temple and then left to die? Since the halakha that five sin offering are left to die is learned through a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the offspring of a sin offering and the substitute of a sin offering are included among those five, it would have been reasonable to conclude that only those sin offerings are left to die, but these animals, the offspring of a peace offering and the substitute of a peace offering, are sacrificed upon the altar.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְהָנָךְ יָמוּתוּ בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, lest you say that these five sin offerings may be left to die in any location, but these, the offspring and substitute of a peace offering, must be left to die specifically in the Temple. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so, as the offspring and substitute of a peace offering may be offered upon the altar.
אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אַף כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ״. וָלָד דְּמַאן? אִי דְּעוֹלָה — זָכָר הוּא, וְלָאו בַּר אוֹלוֹדֵי הוּא! וְאִי דְּחַטָּאת — גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה קָיְימִי!
§ The master said above: One might have thought that this is the halakha even with regard to all sacrificial animals that their substitutes and offspring may be sacrificed upon the altar just as the sacrificial animals themselves are. Therefore, the verse states: “Only your holy things,” indicating that this principle does not apply equally in all cases. The Gemara asks: The offspring of which offering is referred to here? If it is referring to the offspring of a burnt offering, a burnt offering is male, and is therefore not capable of giving birth. And if it is referring to the offspring or substitute of a sin offering, it is learned as a tradition that such an animal is left to die.
לעקוב
