## Temurah Daf 20b

###### Temurah 20b:1
[Temurah 20b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:2
[Temurah 20b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Temurah 20b:3
[Temurah 20b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 20b:4
[Temurah 20b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:4)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:5
[Temurah 20b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 20b:6
[Temurah 20b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 20b:7
[Temurah 20b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:8
[Temurah 20b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** וּצְרִיכָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 20b:9
[Temurah 20b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:10
[Temurah 20b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:11
[Temurah 20b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 20b:12
[Temurah 20b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Temurah 20b:13
[Temurah 20b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:13)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:14
[Temurah 20b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 20b:15
[Temurah 20b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:15)

וְהָתָנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 20b:16
[Temurah 20b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Temurah 20b:17
[Temurah 20b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:17)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 20b:18
[Temurah 20b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 20b:19
[Temurah 20b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/20b:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,