Temurah

R. Jose b. Hanina said: R. Eliezer admits1 that where one sets aside a female animal for a guilt-offering, its young is not offered as a guilt-offering. But surely this is obvious! For R. Eliezer refers only to a case where one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, since its mother has the name of a burnt-offering;2 whereas where one sets aside a female for a guilt-offering, since the mother has not the name of a guilt-offering, even [R. Eliezer] agrees that it is not offered as a guilt-offering!3 If [R. Jose] had not informed us of this, I might have thought that the reason of R. Eliezer was not because the mother has the name of a burnt-offering but because the young is fit for offering, and this animal4 too is fit for offering.5 [R. Jose therefore] informs us that it is not so.6 If this is so,7 why does [R. Jose] inform us that its young is not offered as a guilt-offering? Why not rather inform us that its young is not offered as a burnt-offering,8 and the same would apply to a guilt-offering.9 — If [R. Jose] had informed us concerning a burntoffering, I might have thought that the young is not offered as a burnt-offering, since the mother was not dedicated for that holiness, but in the case of a burnt-offering, I might have said that [the young] is offered as a guilt-offering. [R. Jose] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. IF ONE SETS ASIDE A FEMALE [ANIMAL] FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, IT MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. IT IS THEN SOLD AND HE BRINGS A GUILT-OFFERING WITH ITS MONEY. IF, HOWEVER, HE HAS ALREADY OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING,10 ITS VALUE11 [IS PUT INTO THE CHEST] FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS;12 R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS SOLD WITHOUT [WAITING FOR] A BLEMISH.13 GEMARA. But why [wait] until [the guilt-offering] becomes blemished? Let it be sold, for since it is not fit for anything, that in itself constitutes a blemish? — Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: The reason is this: Because we say, since consecration in respect of its value rests on it, there also rests [on it] bodily consecration.14 Said Raba:15 This proves16 that if one dedicates a male [animal]17 for its value, it receives bodily consecration.18 It has been stated: If one dedicated a male animal for its value, R. Kahana says: It receives the holiness of bodily consecration, whereas Raba says: It does not receive the holiness of bodily consecration. Raba, however, withdrew his opinion in favour of that of R. Kahana, on account of the explanation given [above] by Rab Judah in the name of Rab.19 R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS SOLD [WITHOUT WAITING] FOR A BLEMISH. Said R. Hiyya b. Abin to R. Johanan: But why do we not say that since there rests on the animal a consecration for value, there also rests on it a bodily consecration? — R. Simeon follows the opinion expressed by him elsewhere where he says: Wherever an animal is not fit [for offering], a bodily consecration does not rest on it.20 For it has been taught: If a guilt-offering which should be a year old21 is brought at two years old,22 or a guilt-offering which should be two years old23 is brought at a year old, it is fit [for offering], only that the owners of the sacrifices are not credited as having fulfilled their obligation. R. Simeon, however, says: They are not holy at all.24 But is there not the case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice25 which is not fit for offering and yet R. Simeon holds that it is holy?26 — The case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice is different, because it is fit on the morrow.27 If this is so,28 the same argument ought to apply to a guilt-offering which should be two years old and is brought as a year old, since it will be fit in a year's time!29 Rather the reason of R. Simeon in the case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice must be because we derive it from the case of ‘firstling’, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Judah reported in the name of R. Simeon: An animal too young for sacrifice enters the shed in order to be tithed, and it is like a firstling: Just as a firstling is holy before its due time [for sacrifice]30 and is sacrificed in its due time,31 so [an animal] too young for sacrifice is holy before the prescribed time [for sacrifice] and is offered in its due time.32 The Rabbis have taught: If one consecrates a female [animal] for his burnt-offering, burnt-offering. guilt-offering is not on its mother, since it is a female. used for a burnt-offering, we still say that the young is not used as a burnt-offering, how much less is the young of a female guilt-offering used as a guilt-offering, since neither the mother nor its value can be used as a guilt-offering (Rashi). burnt-offering where R. Simeon requires an actual blemish, because the name of a burnt-offering is on it. intended. the case where he consecrated for its value a male, an animal fit for sacrifice, that we say ‘miggo’ and it becomes consecrated as such (R. Gershom). year old. Mishnah according to the view of R. Simeon. time has elapsed, he is guilty of transgressing a prohibitory law. never be fit for sacrifice. old, does not receive holiness at all?