Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 17 for kids: Mistakes and New Generations

תמורה י״ז

🌱 What happens if someone declares an animal a substitute by mistake? This daf also asks what happens to the offspring of peace offerings, even many generations later.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 17a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 17b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 17

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 17 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 17a, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. Permitted for shearing and work — No. A substitute is like an animal consecrated before it developed a blemish: after redemption, it may be eaten but not sheared or worked, as stated in the second chapter of Bekhorot. By contrast, an animal blemished before consecration becomes fully non-sacred through redemption. For substitution, however, the verse says “a good for a bad, or a bad for a good,” without distinguishing an unblemished animal from a blemished one.
  2. Gemara: With substitution, he receives lashes — The verse includes one who acts unwittingly just as it includes one who acts intentionally.
  3. With consecrated animals, he does not receive lashes — Lashes are imposed only for an intentional act committed after a warning.
  4. He meant to say — “The first black ox to leave my house shall be a substitute for this animal,” but he said “white ox.” In substitution, the white ox becomes sacred and he receives lashes, because the verse includes this case.
  5. With consecrated animals — If the animal is blemished and intended for the altar, he does not receive lashes: it never becomes sacred, because mistaken consecration is ineffective.
  6. Let this one leave and that one enter — The consecrated animal is unblemished and does not become non-sacred; the second animal takes on its sanctity as a substitute. He mistakenly thought the first could become non-sacred like a blemished animal and did not intend to make a substitute, yet he receives lashes. The comparable case with consecrated animals is someone who knows nonpriests may not eat them but mistakenly thinks that, once blemished, they may be eaten without redemption. Likewise, this person knows substitution is forbidden but thinks this particular procedure is permitted.
  7. He entered and consecrated or substituted without realizing it — He was preoccupied and did not realize what he was saying. In substitution, the animal becomes sacred and he receives lashes, because the verse treats an unwitting act like an intentional one.
  8. With consecrated animals — The animal does not become sacred. If it is blemished and intended for the altar, he receives no lashes, because mistaken consecration is ineffective.
  9. They do not become sacred through substitution — Although substitution can confer the inherent sanctity of an offering on an animal with a permanent blemish, it cannot do so on these animals. All the more so, a spoken declaration of consecration gives them only monetary sanctity, like wood and stones; they need no blemish to be redeemed.
  10. Nor do they consecrate others — If they themselves are sacred, they cannot make other animals sacred through substitution.
  11. And Rabbi Meir explains how they can be sacred — This makes it necessary to say that they cannot effect substitution.
  12. When one consecrates an animal — Sanctity takes effect on it.
  13. And it subsequently became a tereifa — Although it is sacred, it cannot effect substitution. The crossbred animal, tumtum, and hermaphrodite, by contrast, were unfit from birth and do not have that sanctity.
  14. Rather, with offspring of consecrated animals — Their mothers were consecrated before conception, so the offspring are automatically sacred, since a fetus is considered part of its mother. Here it was necessary to say that they cannot effect substitution.
  15. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says — Ordinary offspring of consecrated animals can effect substitution. It was therefore necessary to teach that these cannot, and that they cannot acquire the inherent sanctity of an offering even through substitution. These cases were not unfit from the outset: the animal became a tereifa only after consecration, and the tumtum and hermaphrodite became sacred through their mothers before they were formed.
  16. But a blemished animal cannot be offered yet acquires the inherent sanctity of an offering — It does so through substitution, as the mishna teaches. If it was consecrated before becoming blemished, it can also effect substitution, as indicated by “a good for a bad.” So an animal consecrated before becoming a tereifa should likewise effect substitution; if it became a tereifa while non-sacred, it should be able to become sacred through substitution.
  17. Its kind can be offered — Other unblemished animals of its kind can be offered. None of these five has an offerable counterpart of its kind. An animal born by caesarean section is considered a distinct kind because people find such a birth unusual.
  18. A bodily disqualification — All these have a disqualification of the body without any missing part, such as a punctured membrane of the brain or a punctured stomach. A blemish, by contrast, is merely a defect involving a missing part.
  19. But the Torah mentions an animal with an overlong limb or an unsplit hoof among blemished animals — These are bodily disqualifications without a missing part, yet such an animal can effect substitution, as indicated by “a good for a bad.” This is how my teacher explained it.
  20. You might say that a tereifa has others of its kind that can be offered — Even so, it differs from an ordinary blemished animal: like a non-kosher animal, a tereifa may not be eaten, whereas a blemished animal may. Thus, if a tereifa does not resemble a non-kosher animal in lacking an offerable counterpart of its kind, it resembles one in being forbidden for consumption.
  21. It requires a permanent blemish — Shmuel holds that the inherent sanctity of an offering takes effect on it, so it cannot be redeemed until it develops a permanent blemish.
  22. We may infer from this — But we hold that consecrated animals may not be redeemed for use as dog food; instead, they must be left to die.
  23. Like one who consecrates wood — Such items may be redeemed and then fed to dogs, because they are not considered consecrated animals.
  24. This is the correct reading: “An objection was raised: Rabbi Eliezer...” — This passage comes first, followed by the passage beginning, “All consecrated animals that became tereifot...”
Tosafot on Temurah 17a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. For substitution he receives lashes; for consecration he does not — Some manuscripts instead read, “For substitution it becomes consecrated,” and so on. Under the first reading, even someone who substitutes unwittingly receives lashes: Scripture says “shall be,” including unwitting substitution alongside intentional substitution. Rabbi Baruch and Rabbi Samson of Sens debated at length whether unwitting substitution carries lashes, and found conflicting manuscript readings here and at the beginning of the tractate, where I explained the matter. But in the later case of someone who thinks blemished consecrated animals may be eaten without redemption, the reading cannot be “For consecration it does not become consecrated,” since the animal is already consecrated. There the reading must be, “For substitution he receives lashes; for consecrated animals he does not.”
  2. I will enter this house … he consecrated without realizing it — Rashi explains that he was distracted and did not know what he was saying. But why, then, mention entering the house? Rather, he meant: “When I enter this house, this animal will immediately become a substitute, and this one will become consecrated.” He made that declaration knowingly, but when he entered, he said nothing and did not think about his earlier words. Thus the substitution and consecration took effect without his awareness.
  3. If so, the same should apply to a tereifa, since animals of its kind are offered — The question is not asked about the other animals. A tumtum and a hermaphrodite are unusual creatures, as is an animal born by caesarean section, which people regard as extraordinary. A crossbred animal is unusual too. Each is therefore treated as though no animal of its kind has been offered. Rashi explains it this way as well.
Rashi on Temurah 17b, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. Shmuel could say to you — Rabbi Eliezer holds that wherever an animal is not fit to be offered, inherent sanctity does not take hold of it. My view follows the Rabbis who disagree with him.
  2. Perhaps — the teaching that these animals could originally be redeemed follows Rabbi Eliezer.
  3. These — the mishna now lists the animals.
  4. Since he taught ‘their offspring and the offspring of their offspring’ — why must he also say ‘until the end of all time’?
  5. He heard Rabbi Elazar say — in the mishna that the offspring of a peace offering is not offered but is left to die.
  6. Male — regarding peace offerings, the verse says, ‘If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings,’ and so on. It could have said, ‘If he offers it from the herd, he shall offer it without blemish.’ Why add ‘whether male or female’ unless those words are meant to be interpreted?
  7. Is offered — as the baraita derives shortly from ‘female.’
  8. With all sacrificial animals — that is, sacrificial animals belonging to an individual.
  9. Offspring do not apply to all sacrificial animals — for burnt offerings and guilt offerings are male.
  10. The offspring of unblemished animals — meaning that the mother is unblemished.
  11. If — this word includes an additional case.
  12. Why not reverse it — let ‘if male’ include substitutes of blemished animals and ‘if female’ include offspring of blemished animals.
  13. From the same place it was included — substitutes of unblemished animals were included by ‘female.’ Therefore, substitutes of blemished animals are included by the adjoining word ‘if,’ not by the ‘if’ adjoining ‘male.’
  14. The entire verse — let ‘male’ include substitutes and its adjoining ‘if’ include substitutes of blemished animals; let ‘female’ include offspring and its adjoining ‘if’ include offspring of blemished animals.
  15. Suggests a masculine form — therefore, offspring are derived from ‘male.’
  16. For what practical ruling — are these offspring of blemished animals consecrated, when their mothers are unfit to be offered?
  17. In accordance with Rabbi Elazar — he says in the mishna that if someone designated a female animal as a burnt offering and it gave birth, its offspring is offered as a burnt offering, even though its mother is unfit to be offered. Here too, the offspring are offered despite their mothers being unfit; the baraita needed to teach this.
  18. For you might have thought — Rabbi Elazar says that only about a burnt offering, because its mother still has a connection to burnt offerings: although she herself is not offered, her sanctity remains, since female birds can be burnt offerings, and the requirements of being unblemished and male do not apply to birds.
  19. But offspring — of blemished peace offerings might not be offered, because their mothers have no connection to peace offerings: no blemished animal is offered as a peace offering, and there are no bird peace offerings.
  20. According to everyone — even the Rabbis agree that the offspring are consecrated and must graze until they become blemished, rather than being unconsecrated. They likewise say that the offspring of a female animal designated as a burnt offering must graze.
  21. Could he bring it into the Temple and refrain from offering it — since he has fulfilled the command to ‘take and bring’ it?
  22. ‘You shall offer your burnt offerings, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,’ and so on — this verse in Deuteronomy 12:27 follows closely after ‘Only your holy things.’
  23. Could this apply to all sacrificial animals — so that their offspring and substitutes would also be offered?
  24. The verse says ‘only’ — the Gemara will explain below which offspring this excludes. The words ‘but’ and ‘only’ always indicate a limitation.
  25. Why would one think so — why would anyone suppose that they must die, making the verse about ‘your burnt offerings’ necessary? Of the five cases in which a sin offering must be left to die, two are its offspring and its substitute. That implies that the offspring and substitutes of peace offerings do not die, since that rule was taught only for sin offerings.
Tosafot on Temurah 17b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. I do not concede to you about the offspring, or even about their descendants until the end of time — Why does the mishna mention both offspring and their descendants if it says “until the end of time”? It builds from the narrower case to the broader one, as mishnayot often do. But in Ketubot, the Gemara asks whether “produce,” “produce of produce,” and “until the end of time” are each meant precisely. Why not ask that here? There it examines the wording of a legal document, which should contain no unnecessary words; the wording of a mishna need not be examined so strictly. Likewise, at the beginning of Yevamot, the Gemara does not question why the mishna lists co-wives, co-wives of co-wives, and “until the end of time”: each needs to be stated to make clear whom the exemption covers.
  2. Female includes the substitute — Although the Torah says, “Both it and its substitute shall be holy,” another verse is needed to teach that the substitute may be sacrificed. Why is an inclusion needed here when the word “they” excludes the offspring and substitutes of firstborn animals and animal tithes? Precisely because those offerings have an exclusion, this verse must explicitly include the substitute of a peace offering.
  3. Because its mother has the status of a burnt offering — Rashi explains that a female can be a burnt offering: a bird burnt offering may be female, since birds are not subject to the requirements of maleness or unblemished condition. By contrast, a blemished animal cannot be offered as a peace offering, and there are no bird peace offerings. Bar Pada says that offspring of blemished offerings must graze until they develop a blemish, according to everyone. Even Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering is itself sacrificed as a burnt offering, says so because its mother can have the status of a bird burnt offering. But Rashi’s explanation is difficult: on that reasoning, the offspring of a blemished female designated as a burnt offering should also be sacrificed, yet the discussion seems to exclude all offspring of blemished animals. A later passage also indicates that the possibility of a bird burnt offering does not help the offspring. My teacher therefore explains that “its mother has the status of a burnt offering” means that a female designated as a burnt offering has inherent sanctity and cannot be redeemed. It is therefore fitting that her offspring be sacrificed. A blemished mother lacks that inherent sanctity, so her offspring must graze.
  4. If it is a burnt offering, it is male — A male cannot give birth, and its substitute certainly is sacrificed. If it is a guilt offering, an established law says that it must graze. The Gemara could also have objected that a guilt offering is male and cannot give birth, but chose a different objection. According to Rabbeinu Tam, a law given to Moses at Sinai teaches that what is left to die when it is a sin offering is sacrificed as a burnt offering when it is a guilt offering. Why, then, does the Gemara not apply the passage to a guilt offering? Because it is already obvious that it cannot be sacrificed as a guilt offering, while the verse appears to exclude only sacrifice as the same type of offering from which it came. No verse is needed to teach that exclusion here.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 17.