תמורה כ

תמורה כ

וּלְפִסְחוֹ וְלַאֲשָׁמוֹ — עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה.

or for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering, although these offerings are brought only from male animals, it is still consecrated with inherent sanctity. Therefore, if one exchanges for it a non-sacred animal, he renders that animal a substitute, which is consecrated with the same sanctity as the original animal.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָתוֹ — עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, לְפִסְחוֹ וְלַאֲשָׁמוֹ — אֵין עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Sages and says: The halakha is not the same in all these cases. Granted, if he consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering, it renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute, as there is burnt offering status for female birds. For this reason it is consecrated with inherent sanctity and can be sold only after it has become blemished. But if he consecrates a female animal for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering it is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it may be sold even without a blemish. Therefore, it does not render the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, אֶלָּא הָרוֹעֶה לְהִסְתָּאֵב.

This ruling is based upon the principle that no animal renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute except for an animal that has inherent sanctity, which means that even if it may not be sacrificed, it must still be left to graze in order to become blemished, after which it is sold, and the proceeds from the sale are used to purchase a fit offering.

אָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּפֶּסַח, הוֹאִיל וּמוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, with regard to this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the Paschal offering, that a non-sacred animal exchanged for a female which was designated for a Paschal offering does not become consecrated as a substitute. I disagree, since a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed after Passover as a peace offering, and a peace offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal that was designated for a Paschal offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, as there is peace offering status for female animals. It should not be sold unless it has a blemish, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute.

וְלֵימָא: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאָשָׁם, הוֹאִיל וּמוֹתַר אָשָׁם קָרֵב עוֹלָה! רַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִיבּוּר אָזְלִי, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה בְּצִבּוּר.

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And let him also say: I do not agree with the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to a guilt offering, for the same reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with regard to the Paschal offering, since a leftover guilt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, and a bird burnt offering is brought even from female animals. Therefore, a female animal designated as a guilt offering should be consecrated with inherent sanctity, and it should render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Leftover guilt offerings are used for communal gift offerings, i.e., they are sold and the money is used to purchase communal gift offerings, and a substitute cannot be designated for a communal offering.

קָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גַּבֵּי מַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, דְּהָאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלֶה עָלֶיהָ גַּבֵּי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.

§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita: It might enter your mind to say that this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who designates a female animal for his burnt offering: One renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute due to that reason, that it has burnt offering status because of the case of a bird burnt offering, which may be brought as a female.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פָּרָה לְפָרוֹ — תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ, דְּהָאִיכָּא פָּרַת חַטָּאת! קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הוּא, וְקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לָא עָבְדִי תְּמוּרָה.

But if that is so, in the case of a High Priest who designated a female cow instead of his male bull that he is obligated to bring as a sin offering on Yom Kippur, it should be sanctified with regard to rendering a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Here too, the status of a sin offering is upon it, as the red heifer of purification is similar to a sin offering and is female. The Gemara answers: The red heifer is not consecrated with inherent sanctity, as it is not sacrificed upon the altar; rather, it is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for them a substitute.

יָחִיד שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שָׂעִיר לִשְׂעִירָתוֹ — תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ, דְּהָאִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא! אִי נָמֵי, נָשִׂיא שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׂעִירָה לִשְׂעִירוֹ — תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ, דְּהָא יָחִיד מַפְרִישׁ שְׂעִירָה!

The Gemara objects: According to Rabbi Shimon, if an individual, who is obligated to bring a female animal as a sin offering, designated a male goat instead of his female goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, as it has sin offering status, due to the case of the male goat brought as a sin offering by the king. Alternatively, if a king, who is obligated to bring a male animal as a sin offering, designated a female goat instead of his male goat, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to rendering a substitute, since here too it has sin offering status, as an individual designates a female goat as a sin offering. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should have stated that these animals render non-sacred animals exchanged for them consecrated as substitutes.

הָנֵי תְּרֵי גּוּפֵי נִינְהוּ.

The Gemara explains: Neither a female goat brought as a sin offering by a king nor a male goat brought as a sin offering by an individual are considered to have sin offering status. The reason is that these, the king and an individual, are two distinct bodies, and the status of an offering can be conferred only when such an offering is brought by people of the same status.

חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ, כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ שָׂעִיר לִשְׂעִירָתוֹ — תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ, דְּהָא אִילּוּ חָטָא הַשְׁתָּא — בַּר אֵיתוֹיֵי שָׂעִיר הוּא! הָא לָא חָטָא — לָא אִיחַיַּיב בְּשָׂעִיר.

The Gemara objects: If so, then in a case where an individual sinned and is obligated to bring a female goat as a sin offering prior to being appointed as king, and he did not designate an animal as his offering before his appointment, if he designates a male goat instead of his female goat following his appointment, it should be sanctified with inherent sanctity with regard to substitution. In this situation, it should have sin offering status, as, if he sinned now, he is obligated to bring a male goat. The Gemara explains: This is not correct, as he did not sin when he was a king, and therefore was not actually obligated to bring a male goat, but a female goat.

אִי הָכִי, הָכָא נָמֵי, הָא לָאו עוֹלַת הָעוֹף קָמַיְיתֵי!

The Gemara asks: If so, that the individual’s appointment as king does not give sin offering status to the male goat designated as a sin offering for a sin committed prior to his appointment, here too, one should say that a female animal designated for a burnt offering does not have burnt offering status, as the person is not a poor leper, and therefore he does not bring a bird burnt offering. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that such an animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute?

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ — יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹ תּוֹר אוֹ בְּנֵי יוֹנָה.

The Gemara explains: The baraita is not referring to an obligatory burnt offering but rather to a voluntary burnt offering, and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that anyone, even a wealthy man, can bring a bird if he vows to bring a burnt offering. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 107a) that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which animal, brings a lamb, which is the smallest animal that a wealthy man can bring as a burnt offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may even bring a dove or pigeons as a bird burnt offering.

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, וְהָיָה בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the baraita: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 4:7): In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and among them there is an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, or multiple such animals that are males and females, what should be done with them?

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any males should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as burnt offerings. And any females, as they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt offerings. Therefore, any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, and any females, since they cannot be brought as burnt offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace offerings, i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, and their monetary value that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and bring burnt offerings. And according to both opinions, the rest of the property, which is not suitable for sacrificial use, is allocated for Temple maintenance.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּאָמַר זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת הֵיכִי (מקרבן) [קָרְבָן] שְׁלָמִים? הָא מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָּיה קָאָתְיָין!

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, as that was the intention of the one who consecrated them, how can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings? He explains the difficulty: Their status stems from deferred sanctity, as they were consecrated to be burnt offerings, and a female that was designated as a burnt offering is not sacrificed upon the altar, but instead is left to graze until it becomes blemished and is then sold.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, לְמֵימְרָא דִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף אַקְדְּשִׁינְהוּ? אִי הָכִי, נְקֵבוֹת אַמַּאי יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים? בָּעֲיָא רְעִיָּיה!

The Gemara cites another version of this statement: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said that any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt offerings, is this to say that he consecrated them with inherent sanctity? If so, why are the females sold for the needs of peace offerings? Since they were consecrated as burnt offerings, it is required that they be left to graze until they become blemished.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ — לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תִּמָּכֵר שֶׁלֹּא בְּמוּם, וְאָמְרִינַן דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חַזְיָא נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם, לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said with regard to anything that is not fit to be sacrificed itself upon the altar that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If one designated a female for a guilt offering, for which one must bring a male, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale. And we say that the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that as a female animal is not fit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, inherent sanctity does not descend upon it.

אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גַּבֵּי נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם,

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected to Rabbi Yoḥanan: You can say that Rabbi Shimon expressed his opinion specifically with regard to one who consecrates a female for a guilt offering,

דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם אָשָׁם עַל אִמּוֹ, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה!

where there is no guilt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, as a female guilt offering is never brought. But with regard to one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, where there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it has inherent sanctity, and therefore it should not be sold for the needs of a peace offering.

וְעוֹד, הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לְעוֹלָתוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה!

In addition, another objection can be raised against the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon maintains that one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. This indicates that it does have inherent sanctity with regard to this issue. Therefore, the question remains: How can the buyers sacrifice the females as peace offerings, when their status stems from deferred sanctity?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אַף לְעוֹלָתוֹ אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in response: I meant that Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the interpretation of the other tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even one who consecrates a female as his burnt offering does not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute. Even though there is burnt offering status for female birds, a female animal consecrated as a burnt offering does not have inherent sanctity. Therefore, it is sold and sacrificed as a peace offering, and its status is not considered to stem from deferred sanctity.

מַתְנִי׳ תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם, וְלַד תְּמוּרָה, וְלָדָן וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ (דָּמָיו) [דְּמֵיהֶן] לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּתוּ. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהּ עוֹלוֹת.

MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, they are all left to graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze; rather they are left to die. And Rabbi Elazar says: Communal gift offerings are not purchased with the money from the sale; rather, the owner should bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale.

אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו, וְשֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּתוּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹלָה.

These tanna’im similarly disagree about the following case: A guilt offering whose owner died, and a guilt offering that was lost and its owner gained atonement with another animal, graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: The owner must bring an individual burnt offering with the money received for its sale.

וַהֲלֹא אַף נְדָבָה עוֹלָה הִיא, וּמָה בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים? אֶלָּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה עוֹלָה — סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, וּמֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וּנְסָכֶיהָ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן — עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

The mishna objects: But even according to the Rabbis, isn’t a gift offering also a burnt offering? And what then is the difference between the statement of Rabbi Elazar and the statement of the Rabbis? Rather, the Rabbis are referring to a communal burnt offering and Rabbi Elazar is referring to an individual burnt offering, and there are several differences between these two offerings: When the animal comes as an individual burnt offering, the owner places his hands upon it and brings the accompanying meal offering and libations, and its libations come from his own property. If the owner of the animal was a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are his.

וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהִיא נְדָבָה — אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ נְסָכִים, וּנְסָכֶיהָ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן — עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ מִשֶּׁל אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר.

And when it is a communal gift offering, the owner of the animal that was sold does not place his hands upon it, as there is no placing of hands for communal offerings, and he does not bring its libations; rather, its libations are brought from the property of the community. Furthermore, although the owner of the animal that was sold is a priest, the right to perform its Temple service and the right to its hide are divided among the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple that week.

גְּמָ׳ וּצְרִיכָא:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about two cases, the substitute of a guilt offering and the halakha of a guilt offering whose owner died. The Gemara explains that both disputes are necessary.

דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אָשָׁם, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר יָמוּתוּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּגָזַר לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה.

As, had the tanna taught us the dispute only in the case of the guilt offering where the owner achieved atonement through another animal, I might have said that perhaps it is in this case alone that Rabbi Eliezer says that the animals are left to die. This would be because he holds that there is a rabbinic decree concerning what to do with a guilt offering following the owner having achieved atonement, due to the case of a guilt offering before the owner achieved atonement. If burnt offerings were brought with the money from the sale in a case where the owner already achieved atonement by means of another offering, people might mistakenly say that if a guilt offering was lost and another was designated in its place, there too the other animal is sold and burnt offerings are brought from the proceeds. In fact, in that case, as atonement has not yet been achieved, that money must actually be used for a guilt offering.

אֲבָל גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם, וְלַד תְּמוּרָתָהּ, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן.

But with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of its substitute, which in any case are sent to graze, even if the owner did not achieve atonement with another animal, one might say that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis, as there is no need for such a decree.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָתָם, בְּהָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — צְרִיכָא.

And had the tanna taught us the dispute only there, in the case of the substitute of a guilt offering and the offspring of the substitute, I might have said that perhaps it is only in this case that the Rabbis say the animals are sent to graze, as there is no reason for a decree. But with regard to the case of a guilt offering where the owners achieved atonement, one might say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the animals are left to die, as a decree. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַחְלוֹקֶת לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב אָשָׁם.

§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only after atonement has been achieved, i.e., after the guilt offering has been sacrificed. But before atonement is achieved, and the consecrated animal and the substitute are both present, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a guilt offering, if the owner wishes.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא דְּאֵין אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּדָבָר הַבָּא בַּעֲבֵירָה, וְעוֹד, הָתָנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּאָמַר וָלָד רִאשׁוֹן קָרֵב, וְלַד שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ קָרֵב!

Rava said: There are two refutations of this statement: One is that a person cannot achieve atonement through an item that comes from a transgression, and this offspring comes from a transgression, as its mother offspring was rendered a substitute, which is prohibited. And in addition, didn’t Rav Ḥananya teach a baraita in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that only the first offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed? Here too, the offspring of a substitute is considered like the second offspring, as it is two stages removed from the original offering.

אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַחְלוֹקֶת קוֹדֶם כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה — הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב עוֹלָה.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the offspring of a substitute applies only before atonement has been achieved,as Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is left to die, due to a concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering, whereas the Rabbis say that it is left to graze, as there is no concern that it will be brought as a guilt offering. But after the original guilt offering is sacrificed and atonement has been achieved, everyone agrees that even the offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering, as there is no further concern that it might be sacrificed as a guilt offering.

וְהָתָנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי! קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥananya teach a baraita in support of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the second offspring is not sacrificed? How, then, can the offspring of the substitute be sacrificed, as it too should be treated like the second offspring? The Gemara concedes: That is difficult.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר חִיָּיא מֵרַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כָּהֲנָא: הִפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְאָשָׁם, בְּנָהּ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרַב לְעוֹלָה? וְתִיפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.

§ Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya inquired of Rabbi Avin bar Kahana: If one designated a female animal as a guilt offering and it gave birth to a male, what is the halakha with regard to whether its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering? The Gemara questions the necessity of this inquiry: And let him resolve the inquiry from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that Rabbi Elazar concedes that if one designates a female animal as a guilt offering, the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, as there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as the mother, and likewise it is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, as the mother was designated as a guilt offering. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya never heard that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנָהּ קָרֵב עוֹלָה. הַאי מַאי? עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא מַפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָה, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל אִמּוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה!

The Gemara returns to the inquiry of Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya: What is the halakha? Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya: Its offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering. Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya challenges his response: What is this? Rabbi Elazar says in the mishna (18b) that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only when he designates a female animal as a burnt offering and then it gives birth to a male, due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother. But with regard to a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering and subsequently gave birth to a male, where there is no guilt offering status for animals that are the same sex as its mother, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed at all.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּשֵׁם עוֹלֶה עַל אִמּוֹ, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה, וְהָא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה.

Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to him in response: The reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, that the offspring of a female animal designated as a burnt offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering, is not because there is burnt offering status for an animal that is the same sex as its mother, but rather because it is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, and this offspring of the female animal designated as a guilt offering is also fit to be sacrificed.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: וְלָדָן וְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלָה — בִּדְמֵיהֶן — אִין,

Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rabbi Avin bar Kahana from the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says that in the case of the offspring of a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering or the offspring of the substitute of a guilt offering, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they graze until they become blemished, and then they are sold, and the owner brings an individual burnt offering with the money received for their sale. The Gemara infers: With the money received for their sale, yes, he brings a burnt offering,