Commentary for Temurah 3:12

אלו קדשים. וולד ולדן עד סוף העולם – in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 17b), the objection is raised, since it taught [in the Mishnah], “their offspring” (i.e., their offspring and the substitute’s offspring), why do I need, “the offspring of their offspring to infinity?” Because our teacher/Tanna heard Rabbi Eliezer who said further on [in this Mishnah] that the offspring of peace-offerings are not offered as peace-offerings, because of this, the Tanna taught, “the offspring of their offspring to infinity,” meaning to say, not only with their offspring do I not agree with you, (since for him, the young has the law of the mother), but even “to infinity,” I do not agree with you (since even then, the young has the law of the mother).

Introduction The third chapter discusses the status of the offspring and the substitutes of sacrifices, and whether or not they have the same exact status as the original/mother animal. In our mishnah the sages debate the status of the offspring of a shelamim, an offering of well-being.

ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים – but rather he brings it in to the vaulted chamber (i.e., closing the barn door without food until they died) and it dies [there]. According to the Rabbis, because of a decree, if you had said the offspring of peace-offerings have a remedy, one would come to delay to the mother until she would give birth and raise a herd from the the offspring, and they would come to have shearing and work.

The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them:
The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. According to the first opinion, animals whose sanctity is derived from the original shelamim offering are treated exactly like shelamim. This means they require laying on of the hands (semikhah) before they are sacrificed, they require libations (grain, wine and oil) and the breast and shoulder must be waved, as is done with the shelamim itself. This would include the offspring of the original shelamim, the substitute and its offspring, and even any offspring of other offspring of the original or its substitute.

לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים – the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that the offspring of offspring of peace-offerings that it should not be offered, for his intention was known from his actions that he needed to raise a herd/flock. But the legal decision is according to the first Tanna/teacher that the offspring of their offspring until eternity, they are like peace-offerings.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the offspring of a shelamim is not offered as a shelamim. Rather it must be left to die of starvation, as was the case in mishnah 2:2. The other sages again reiterate their opinion from section one.

העיד רבי יהושע וכו' – and not according to Rabbi Eliezer. And this testimony is true and [the] Halakha.

Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. According to Rabbi Shimon everyone holds that the offspring of the offspring or the offspring of the offspring of the substitute may not be offered as a shelamim. The reason for this prohibition is that if we let such animals be offered as shelamim, people would see that owners delaying bringing their offerings to the Temple and rather holding them long enough for a third generation to be born. The only reason to do so is that the person wants to grow flocks of shelamim, since he can eat most of the meat. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, the Torah says that one should not delay in bringing one’s vows to the Temple. Second, it is prohibited to shear or work these animals and if he keeps them around for a long time, the chances that he will transgress this commandment go up. To prevent people from holding on to their shelamim offerings, Rabbi Shimon says that we rule that their third generation can no longer be eaten. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer debate only with regard to the original offspring. It is, after all, possible that the shelamim (or its substitute) will have offspring without having a long delay between its sanctification and its being brought to the Temple. Therefore, the sages say that this offspring can be offered.

ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג – it is stated on the holiday of Shavuot, for if he would wait and look forward to the holiday of Sukkot (which is the normal meaning of the word, חג when used without a modifier), it is found that he would violate a positive commandment (Deuteronomy 12:5-6): “there you are to go, and here you are to bring [your burnt offerings and other sacrifices],” that implies that on the first Festival that you go there, bring all of the votive offerings that are upon you. However, regarding the negative commandment (Deuteronomy 23:22): “[When you make a vow to the LORD your God,] do not put off fulfilling it, [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurrent guilt],” you do not violate until there has passed over you three Festivals.

Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testify that they have a tradition that supports the sages in their dispute with Rabbi Eliezer. Furthermore, Rabbi Papias testifies that they did eat the offspring of a shelamim. This testimony is found also in tractate Eduyot (testimonies) 7:6. There the testimony is explicitly brought as a refutation of Rabbi Eliezer.

הרי אלו כתודה – their portions of the sacrifices that are offered on thee altar and the flesh is eaten during the day and at night.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with the offspring and substitutes of a todah (thanksgiving offering) or of an olah (whole burnt offering).

ובלבד שאינן טעונין לחם – as it is written (Leviticus 7:12): “’he shall offer together with the sacrifice if thanksgiving unleavened cakes with oil mixed in,” (the quoted sentence fragment – "על לחם התודה" does not exist in Scripture) the thanksgiving offering itself requires bread, but not its offspring nor its substitutes require bread.

The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread. Basically, the animals whose holiness comes about as a result of a todah (offspring, and their offspring) have the status of a todah. The one difference is that the original todah is brought with a bread offering, whereas the offspring is brought without a bread offering. This law was derived midrashically in Menahot 7:4.

תמורת עולה – as, for example, he substituted a male for a burnt-offering (i.e., instead of a female).

The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned. The substitute of an olah is a case where a person substituted a male animal for an olah. If one substitutes a female for the male olah, then the female is holy, and its offspring is sacrificed as an olah. But the olah itself does not have halakhic offspring, because the olah is a male. All of the offspring in this section, therefore, refer to a case where a female was substituted for a male. These offspring must all be flayed, cut into pieces and then burned on the altar. These laws are outlined in the first chapter of Leviticus.

וולד תמורתה – as, for example, he substituted a female for a burnt-offering, for a female is dedicated in the substitution of a burnt-offering, and it gave birth to the male substitute.

ויביא בדמיו עולה – the first segment [of the Mishnah] as it is taught: “lo, these are like a burnt-offering regarding the offspring of a substitute,” because of the first dedication that these came all of them were from his own power that he offers them, for it is a male. But here, when he sets aside a female as a burnt-offering, that all of them come from his own power, it is feminine and it is not offered, therefore, it is not like a burnt-offering, but rather, he should sell it and bring a burnt-offering with its monetary value.

If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the [male] animal itself is offered as an olah. An olah must be a male animal. If one sets aside a female animal to be an olah, he has sanctified it, but it cannot be offered up in the manner he wished. To solve this problem, we let the animal go out to pasture until it is blemished. Once it is blemished it can be sold, because it can no longer be sacrificed. Our mishnah points out that if the female animal has male offspring, the same process is undergone by that animal. We can’t sacrifice it because its sanctity came from its mother and its mother was improperly dedicated to be an olah. In both cases the profits from the sale go towards buying another olah. Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that the male offspring can be offered as an olah, even though its mother could not.

המפריש נקבה לאשם – but a guilt-offering does not come from a female [beast].

If one sets aside a female [animal] for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham [in its place], its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without [waiting for] a blemish. The asham (a guilt-offering) must also be male. The same solution is employed as was used above. There is an additional issue with the asham. If before he buys the new asham he brings another animal through which he atones for his guilt, then he can’t use the proceeds from the blemished asham to buy a new asham, because one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. In this case, the proceeds go to a fund that is used to buy freewill offerings. Rabbi Shimon says that they can sell the original asham without even waiting for it to be blemished. In his opinion, the fact that it can’t be sacrificed as an asham already is a blemish, and we need not wait for another one.

תרעה עד שיסתאב – until a blemish befalls it. And in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 19b) it raises the objection: “But let it be sold, for since it is not fit for anything, that in itself constitutes a blemish, and it is not sanctified other than for its value, it should be sold immediately and then one can purchase a guilt-offering with its proceeds. And it answers, for since the holiness of its value rests on it, there also rests on it bodily consecration and it is for this thing that it requires a blemish.

The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money. As stated above, one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. So while an asham can make a substitute, the substitute cannot be offered as an asham. Neither can the offspring or any subsequent offspring of the substitute or the asham. According to the first opinion, all of these animals must go out to pasture, become blemished and then sold for money to be used for freewill offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says that these animals must be left to die, just as they are in the case of a hatat (see 2:2; we will learn more about the hatat in the next mishnah). Rabbi Elazar says that he can bring olot (burnt offerings) with the proceeds. His opinion will be explained in tomorrow’s mishnah.

אם קרב אשמו – and furthermore, he does not need a guilt-offering.

An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement [through another animal] goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money. If the asham itself cannot be sacrificed because either its owner died or he already achieved atonement through another animal, then the same debate about what to do with the proceeds of its sale occurs as we saw in section three above.

יפלו דמיו לנדבה – for the horn-shaped boxes in the Temple to receive the money for sacrifices which are supplied by the Temple authorities that from them they take to bring to the free-will offerings of the community.

תמכר שלא במום – for since it is not appropriate for a guilt-offering, there is no greater blemish from this, for it was not sanctified for the bodily consecration , and it should be immediately sold and he can bring with its proceeds a guilt-offering. But even though that regarding someone who separates a female beast for a burnt-offering, Rabbi Shimon does not dispute that it requires a blemish, there that there is a burnt-offering with a female beast, for we find a female burnt offering with a bird, but a guilt offering with a female beast, we don’t find. Therefore, this this is its blemish and it is not sanctified other than for its monetary value. But the Halakha is not a according to Rabbi Shimon.

תמורת אשם וכ' – all of them are to pasture, for the Halakha is that all that with a sin-offering is left to die, with a guilt-offering it is to pasture [until it develops a blemish and then it is sold], and the substitute for a sin-offering is left to die.

ומותו – for Rabbi Eliezer holds that just as sin-offering, so too with a guilt-offering; just as a sin-offering’s substitute is left to die, also, the substitute of a guilt-offering.

יביא בדמיהן עולות – which are permissible for an individual’s donation, we we follow, but not for the donation of a community.

אשם שמתו בעליו או שכיפורו בעליו באחר – that with a sin-offering, it should die, but with a guilt-offering, it should pasture until it is blemished [and then sold].

והלא אף הנדבה עולה – [the Mishnah] is explaining what is the difference between them (i.e., the first Tanna/teacher [that the animal should be left out to pasture to develop a blemish, be sold and that its monetary value should be donated to the Temple treasury as a free-will offering] and Rabbi Eleazar [that he should purchase with its proceeds a burnt-offering]).

Introduction Today’s mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

בזמן שהיא באה חובה – when it is placed upon the individual to over it, he lays his hands upon it, etc. (i.e., he brings drink-offerings/libations on its account, and the libations are from his own funds).

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? In the last two sections of yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Elazar and the sages argued what to do with the proceeds from the sale of an asham that couldn’t have been sacrificed. Rabbi Elazar said they would buy an olah, and the sages said that the money would go into the treasury of funds used to buy freewill offerings. The problem is that the money from this fund would be used to buy olot, which can be brought as freewill offerings. So what is the difference between Rabbi Elazar’s opinion and that of the sages?

ואם היה כהן – he who set aside the guilt-offering and was expiated through another [animal], and the first, an animal dedicated as a guilt-offering, has been condemned to pasture until natural death.

Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. The difference is that when an individual brings the olah, as Rabbi Elazar stated, he must lay his hands upon the sacrifice, he is responsible for the libations (wine, grain and oil) and if he is a priest, he gets to sacrifice it, and he keeps its hide, as the officiating priest always does with an olah.

עבודתה ועורה – of the burnt-offering purchased from the proceeds of that guilt-offering, is his, and he himself offers and takes the hide, and even if it is not from the priestly watch of that week.

Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week]. However, if it is brought from the funds for freewill offerings, then it is a communal sacrifice. He does not lay his hands on it, the libations come from communal funds and even if he is a priest, he does not get to sacrifice it himself. Rather the duty falls to whatever division of priests is serving in the Temple that week, and they receive the hide.

אינו סומך עליה – for it is the free-will donation of the community which does not have the laying of the hands.

ואע"פ שהוא כהן עבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר – for it is of the community, and a Kohen from a different priestly watch is not permitted to offer it up, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:8): “[They shall receive equal shares of the dues,] without regard to personal gifts or patrimonies,” what the patrimonies sold to each other, you take on your Shabbat, and I will take on my Shabbat. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

הרי אלו כבכור וכמעשר – like the sanctity of the firstling and the tithe of the cattle, which are not slaughtered in the booths of a mercantile fair/bazaar.

Introduction Today’s mishnah, the final of our chapter, deals with the first-born and a tithed animal.

חוץ מהבכור והמעשר (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1) – because there is no benefit for something sanctified in the salle, for the proceeds of a firstling go to a Kohen, and the proceeds of a tithe go to the owners, and because of their benefit, we don’t treat them lightly.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. The substitute and offspring of a first-born and an animal tithed, and all of their subsequent substitutes and offspring, all are treated just like a first-born or a tithe. They can be eaten by their owners once they have become blemished [the priest who receives the first-born is considered its owner once he receives it]. However, the substitute of a first-born is not sacrificed, as is the first-born.

ובאין מחוצה לארץ לארץ חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1) – for they don’t come ab initio from outside the land of Israel, as the reason is explained beyond. But if they came as pure animals, they are sacrificed.

What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy. The mishnah now lists ways in which the first-born and tithe differ from all other animals dedicated to be sacrifices. If a blemish occurs to any other dedicated animal, it must be redeemed for money, and only then it can be eaten. Once it is redeemed, the animal can be sold and slaughtered in the marketplace, and its meat can be weighed out, because the animal is no longer holy. In contrast, the first-born and tithe are not redeemed, so they remain holy. Therefore, when they are eaten, they must not be treated in the normal way that meat is treated, for this is considered to be disgraceful. [As an aside, it is interesting to note that the sages believed that the way in which meat is treated is considered as either disgraceful or respectful to the animal]. Other animals are sometimes dedicated outside the land of Israel and then brought to Israel to be sacrifices. In contrast, while a first-born and tithe outside the land is holy, they are not generally brought to the land of Israel. However, if they are brought to the land of Israel, the same rules apply when they are blemished they can be eaten, and if they are not, they are sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon explains that the difference between the first-born and tithe on the one hand and the other dedications is that the former have a “remedy” when they are outside of Israel. There, they can go out to pasture and then when they become blemished, they can be eaten by their owners. There is no real reason to bring them to the land of Israel. In contrast, while other dedicated animals can be let out to pasture and become blemished, even once they are blemished they must be redeemed and a sacrifice must be brought with the proceeds. In which case, it is just as easy to bring them directly to Israel to be sacrificed themselves.

אמר ר' שמעון מה טעם – that the firstling and the tithe do not come from outside the Land of Israel like the other Holy Things.

שבכור ומעשר יש להם פרנסה במקומן – they have repair in their places that [the animals] will go out to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifices and their owners will consume them with their blemishes.

ושאר כל הקדשים – even though a blemish befell them, they are in their sanctity, you need to redeem them and to elevate their monetary value and to offer them up., for since their end is to elevate their monetary value, they should raise them themselves and offer them up. But the legal decision is, that a firstling and a tithe that were pure that came up from outside the Land [of Israel] should not be offered up, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23): “You shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, in the presence of the LORD your God,” from the place that you raise up tithes and grain, you raise up the firstling, and from the place that you don’t raise up the tithe of your new grain, you don’t raise up the firstling. And the tithe of cattle is also made an analogy to the tithe of your new grain.