Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 18 for kids: Calves and Thanks Loaves

תמורה י״ח

🍞 This daf asks what happens to the offspring of different offerings. Some may be offered, while others may not. It also asks which thanks offerings need loaves.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 18a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 18b 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 18

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 18 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 18a, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. But this depends on that — This is the Gemara’s objection: if the animal must die, it plainly cannot be offered.
  2. He violates a positive commandment — This applies to both sin offerings and guilt offerings. “Only your sacred offerings” refers to the substitutes and offspring of burnt offerings and peace offerings, mentioned in the following verse, “And you shall offer your burnt offerings.” It excludes other offerings, such as sin offerings and guilt offerings. A prohibition inferred from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment.
  3. But they learned this as a tradition — Whenever a sin offering must die, the corresponding guilt offering is left to graze. Thus, while the substitute of a sin offering must die, the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze; once blemished, its value goes toward communal voluntary burnt offerings.
  4. A guilt offering consigned to grazing — If it was assigned to graze but was slaughtered without a specified purpose before it became blemished, it is valid as a burnt offering. Its proceeds were already destined for that purpose.
  5. But if it was not consigned to grazing, no — Even if its owner has fulfilled his obligation, slaughtering it without a specified purpose is entirely invalid so long as it has not been assigned to graze.
  6. Why? Because Scripture says, “It is a guilt offering” — It retains its status as a guilt offering. Since it can no longer be offered as one, it is invalid.
  7. And let him derive all of them from it — All these laws were derived from that verse above.
  8. You shall take and go, even from their pasture — This refers not to offspring and substitutes but to the offerings themselves. It instructs a person to bring them promptly: when the Festival arrives, he must seek them out even if they are grazing in the open country, rather than wait until another time.
  9. Another version: Even from their threshing sledges — Even if the animals are pulling threshing sledges. As explained in Menachot, a threshing sledge is a large perforated board fitted with pegs; it is placed on grain and animals are driven over it. If an animal he intends to consecrate is threshing when he is ready to go up for the Festival, he must take it along rather than wait until another time.
  10. Mishnah: It may not be offered as a peace offering — Instead, it is confined in an enclosure until it dies. This is a rabbinic ruling, because of the precaution explained below; the tradition from Sinai requires only the five categories of sin offerings to die.
  11. They did not disagree about the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering, or the offspring of the offspring of its substitute — The Gemara explains this.
  12. Gemara: “And if his sacrifice is a peace offering” — He interprets the word translated “if” as “mother.”
  13. And its replacement — For example, the original animal was lost, another was designated in its place, and then the first was found, leaving both available.
  14. The verse says, “If [he offers it] for thanksgiving” — The word “if” includes all these cases as offerings, and Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree.
  15. A precaution — If offspring of peace offerings could be offered, a person might keep the mothers until they gave birth, to build up herds from the offspring. This could lead to shearing or working the consecrated animals. No such precaution was imposed for thanksgiving offerings, because they are less common than peace offerings.
  16. How is this taught? — Is Rabbi Shimon saying that they did not disagree because Rabbi Eliezer agrees that these later offspring may be offered? Or is he saying that they did not disagree because even the Rabbis agree that they may not be offered? The question is whether Rabbi Eliezer agrees that, after several generations, people will not remember that the animals came from peace offerings. If so, there is no concern that seeing them offered will prompt others to keep their own peace offerings to breed herds.
  17. It is only an occasional occurrence — People do not commonly keep an animal that long.
Tosafot on Temurah 18a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Why is a verse needed? Was this not learned by tradition? — One might ask why the Gemara does not answer, as it did above, that the verse teaches that someone who sacrifices the animal nonetheless violates a positive commandment. The answer is that “it is” does not imply such a commandment as clearly as “only” does.
  2. If it was consigned to grazing, yes; if it was not, no. Why? Scripture says, “It is”: It must remain as it is — This is Rashi’s text. But here the requirement that it first be consigned to grazing appears to come from a verse, whereas in Pesachim it is attributed to a rabbinic decree. A further difficulty is that this passage says it is valid as a burnt offering, though the tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai says that wherever a sin offering is left to die, the corresponding guilt offering is left to graze. Rabbeinu Tam therefore understands that the tradition also establishes that the guilt offering can be offered as a burnt offering. He omits the words “if it was consigned to grazing, yes; if it was not, no.” On his reading, “it must remain as it is” means it already has the status it is destined to have—a burnt offering. Thus, even if slaughtered without specifying an offering, it is valid as a burnt offering; no express change of designation is needed. The tradition is still necessary to tell us what its future status is. In another version in Pesachim, it is valid if slaughtered expressly as a burnt offering, but not if slaughtered without specifying an offering. On that reading, “it must remain as it is” means it retains its present status until it is expressly redesignated. The tradition is still needed to establish that such a redesignation can make it valid as a burnt offering.
  3. Even from their grazing places — Rashi explains: Even if, when the Festival arrives, the animals are grazing far away, the owner must not say, “I will not trouble myself to find and bring them; I will wait until another time.” He offers another explanation: even if they are threshing grain. But that is difficult, since using consecrated animals for work is forbidden. Rabbi Yitzchak explains the phrase as “even when they are thin”: One might have thought that, because these animals are weak and were not themselves originally consecrated—as in the case of offspring and substitutes—they need not be brought. Rabbi Yitzchak ben Shneor explains: even from a place where they may be raised, namely outside the Land of Israel, since raising livestock in the Land is prohibited. This matches the Sifrei’s teaching that consecrated offerings are brought from outside the Land. Firstborn animals and animal tithes are excluded, because, if blemished, they may be eaten where they are, outside the Land; the other offerings may not.
  4. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not offered — This is a rabbinic restriction. As the Gemara explains, the concern is that the owner might raise whole flocks from it.
  5. And the Sages say: It is offered — This needs clarification: Are these Sages not the anonymous first tanna?
  6. And its replacement — This means that the animal was lost, its owner set aside another in its place, and then the first was found, so both are now present.
  7. Rabbi Elazar said: They did not disagree that the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering, or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute, is not offered — The amoraim disagree about this statement. Rabba says it is more reasonable that they agreed these animals are offered, not that they are not offered. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says the opposite: They agreed they are not offered. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, there are three positions. The anonymous tanna preceding Rabbi Shimon holds that, according to the Sages, all the offspring are offered, while according to Rabbi Eliezer, none are. Rabbi Shimon holds that everyone agrees that offspring beyond the first generation are not offered; they disagree only about the first offspring. The Gemara explains their reasons.
Rashi on Temurah 18b, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. Lamb — this implies the offspring of a lamb.
  2. It is offered — this means the offspring of a peace offering, since the verse speaks about peace offerings.
  3. Offspring of what? — What offering’s offspring are you excluding when you say that the offspring of other offerings are not sacrificed?
  4. The offspring of an animal tithe — if a female was designated as the tenth animal and later gave birth, its offspring is not sacrificed. It grazes until it develops a blemish and is then eaten by its owner, like a blemished animal tithe.
  5. It is derived from the firstborn — a firstborn has no offspring to sacrifice, since it is male.
  6. Each day he violates a positive commandment — the verse says, “You shall come there and bring there,” implying that on the first pilgrimage Festival he attends, he must bring all his outstanding vows.
  7. He should have eaten it by Shavuot — it is understandable why he did not sacrifice it on Passover: perhaps it was born during Passover and the Festival ended before it was seven days old.
  8. And the other sage — Rav Zevid would say: When a tanna mentions Passover and then wishes to mention Shavuot, he calls it Shavuot, not simply “the Festival.” But if he had called Passover “the Festival of Matzot,” he could have called Shavuot “the Festival” too.
  9. If so — if “the Festival” means Shavuot, or if the animal had been ill on Shavuot.
  10. What is his testimony? — What does Rabbi Pappeyas teach us? If “the Festival” meant Sukkot and the animal was not ill on Shavuot, his testimony would challenge Rava’s view. But on these explanations, what do we learn from it?
  11. They are like a thanks offering — they are sacrificed and may be eaten for one day and the following night.
  12. What does Scripture say, “He shall offer the thanks offering”? — It says, “If he offers it as a thanks offering, then he shall present…” It could instead have said simply, “He shall present with the sacrifice of the thanks offering…”
  13. Scripture teaches, “He shall offer a thanks offering” — this includes it in any case.
  14. A second one — if he offers it after offering the first.
  15. He shall offer it: one, not two — this excludes a second set of loaves, not the sacrifice of the second animal, which is included by “If he offers it as a thanks offering.”
  16. From where are they included? — Included for sacrifice.
  17. And replacements — for example, when a thanks offering was lost and he designated another in its place.
  18. A substitute for a burnt offering — for example, if he substituted a male animal for a burnt offering.
  19. The offspring of a substitute — for example, if he substituted a female animal for a burnt offering and the substitute gave birth to a male.
  20. What is different? — Why do the Rabbis not disagree about the offspring of a substitute for a burnt offering, where the mishna says without qualification that it is offered entirely on the altar?
  21. But in the latter part — the Rabbis disagree about the offspring of a burnt offering: it itself is not sacrificed; rather, its value is used for an offering.
  22. It is taught as a matter of dispute — just as they disagree in the latter part, they disagree in the first part. The statement there that these are like a burnt offering is Rabbi Eliezer’s view.
  23. For the offspring of a substitute, its mother is sacrificed — not its actual mother, but the original consecrated animal from which these all derive, which was male. By contrast, when someone designates a female for a burnt offering, she is the original consecrated animal and is not sacrificed.
  24. A substitute for a guilt offering — it grazes until blemished. This follows the tradition given to Moses at Sinai: where a sin offering is left to die, a guilt offering is left to graze. A substitute for a sin offering is left to die.
  25. For voluntary offerings — the money goes into the Temple collection boxes and is used to bring communal voluntary offerings.
  26. They must die — Because he holds that the rule for a guilt offering is like the rule for a sin offering, as stated in Zevachim 10b.
  27. He brings a burnt offering with their proceeds — Because surplus offerings go toward an individual’s voluntary offerings.
  28. It itself — But not the offspring of a substitute offering. Since its mother cannot be offered as a burnt offering—a female cannot be offered as one—and even if it were male, tradition teaches that a substitute for a guilt offering must graze, its offspring is not offered either. Why, then, does he say that the offspring of a female designated for a burnt offering is offered?
  29. Its mother bears the designation of a burnt offering — Someone who sets aside an animal for a burnt offering has consecrated it for that purpose. Though it is female, it still bears that designation: a female bird can be offered as a burnt offering. Also, when the animal is sold, its proceeds are used for a burnt offering.
Tosafot on Temurah 18b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Rabbi Hiyya taught in support of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “If it is a lamb that he consecrates”—the first offspring is offered, but the second offspring is not. This must follow the Rabbis, since according to Rabbi Eliezer even the first offspring is not offered. The verse is only a scriptural support: the ban on offering the second offspring is rabbinic, lest someone raise whole flocks from such animals. In Pesachim 96b, this verse is used for a different interpretation.
  2. He should have eaten it by Shavuot — The Gemara does not ask why he did not eat it by Passover, since the offspring may then have been too young to be offered.
  3. If so, what was his testimony? — If the animal had not been ill on Shavuot and “Festival” meant Sukkot, Rabbi Pappeyas would be disputing Rava. But now, what does his testimony teach us?
  4. And replacements — This needs explanation. If it means that someone designated a thanks offering, lost it, designated another in its place, and then found the first, so that both are present, we have already learned this from the beginning of the baraita.
  5. But with the offspring of a substitute, whose mother is also offered — This does not mean its actual mother. It means the original consecrated animal from which these animals derive; that animal is male and is offered.
  6. Its value may be used, but the animal itself may not be offered — One might ask: What does this teach us? Perhaps the animal itself is not offered because anything that must die when it is a sin offering must graze when it is a guilt offering. The offspring of a sin offering must die, so the offspring of a guilt offering would graze. The answer is that this rule was handed down only for cases that can normally arise with a guilt offering: its owner died, its owner was atoned for by another offering, it was substituted, or it passed its eligible year. An offspring cannot normally arise from a guilt offering, since a guilt offering is male, so the rule was not handed down for this case.
  7. But according to you, who say it is not offered — One might ask: Rava said above that when the mother is offered, even the Rabbis agree that her offspring is offered. Here, the mother of the offspring of a guilt-offering substitute is offered, so why do the Rabbis not say that the offspring itself is offered? One answer is that Rav Hisda does not accept Rava’s explanation above. Instead, he follows Rabbah bar bar Hana’s explanation that the earlier teaching reflects a dispute and follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rava, for his part, gives a different answer here, as stated shortly. My teacher, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, explained that Rav Hisda could also accept Rava’s earlier answer: the Rabbis agree when the offspring is from a substitute for a burnt offering, because the original consecrated animal is offered as a burnt offering. Here the substitute is for a guilt offering, so the original animal is offered as a guilt offering, not a burnt offering; there is no reason to offer its offspring as a burnt offering. Rabbi Eliezer’s point is that when someone designates a female as a burnt offering and she gives birth, the mother grazes rather than being offered, yet her offspring is offered. He argues that the offspring of a guilt-offering substitute should likewise be offered, even though the original consecrated animal is not offered as a burnt offering.
  8. Rather, when someone designates a female as a burnt offering — Rashi explains that her mother has the designation of a burnt offering, since she was consecrated for one. Although she is female, females can be bird burnt offerings. Moreover, when she is sold, her proceeds are used for a burnt offering. By contrast, neither a guilt-offering substitute nor its proceeds have the designation of a burnt offering. Rashi’s first explanation, based on a female bird burnt offering, cannot be reconciled with the discussion below; I will explain it there.

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 18.