Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 20 for kids: Which Offering Fits?

תמורה כ׳

🌾 This daf asks what happens when an animal is set aside for an offering it cannot be used for. The sages discuss substitutes, offspring, and what to do with animals that cannot be brought as planned.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 20a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 20b 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 20

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 20 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 20a, in English Tab translation (14)
  1. For his Paschal offering or his guilt offering — Neither offering can be brought from a female animal.
  2. Read: “Nothing renders a substitute except what must graze until blemished” — Only an animal with inherent sanctity renders a substitute. If it cannot be offered, it may not be sold without a blemish but must graze until it develops one. Rabbi Shimon therefore holds that a female designated for a guilt or Paschal offering may be sold without a blemish and does not render a substitute, since neither offering can be brought from a female. A female designated for a burnt offering, however, must graze and does render a substitute, since a bird burnt offering can be female.
  3. Since a leftover Paschal offering is brought as a peace offering — A peace offering can be female. Although this particular female cannot be offered even as a peace offering after Passover, it acquires inherent sanctity because a female can have peace-offering status.
  4. Since a leftover guilt offering is brought as a burnt offering — This female designated for a guilt offering would then have burnt-offering status and acquire inherent sanctity, since a bird burnt offering can be female.
  5. For communal gift offerings — Even if it becomes a burnt offering, it does not render a substitute, since it is destined for a communal burnt offering.
  6. For his bull — This means the High Priest’s Yom Kippur sin-offering bull. The female cow could have sin-offering status because the red heifer is called a sin offering.
  7. It is consecrated for Temple maintenance — The red heifer is not offered on the altar. It is called consecrated for Temple maintenance because the laws governing that kind of consecration apply to it.
  8. They are two distinct persons — An individual and a king have different statuses: an individual cannot bring a male goat as his sin offering, and a king cannot bring a female goat. A female can, however, be a burnt offering for the same person: he could relinquish his property, become poor, and qualify to bring a bird burnt offering.
  9. He sinned before he was appointed — A male goat could have sin-offering status for this same person, since if he sinned now, he would be required to bring one.
  10. A rich person does not bring a bird burnt offering — If he owed a burnt offering, he would not bring a bird, since he is rich. Even if he is poor, an unspecified voluntary burnt offering cannot be fulfilled with a bird unless he explicitly designated a bird.
  11. Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah — On his view, even a rich person’s unspecified voluntary burnt offering can be fulfilled with a bird burnt offering.
  12. And their proceeds go with the rest of the property to Temple maintenance — Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified consecrations, even of animals, are for Temple maintenance. Still, an animal fit for the altar never loses its altar designation. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a person would not designate an animal fit for the altar for Temple maintenance rather than for the altar. Thus, he designated the animals for the altar, and the males themselves are offered as burnt offerings.
  13. And the females are sold, and burnt offerings are bought with their proceeds — He designated the animals, without specifying, as burnt offerings.
  14. It comes from a rejected consecration — Since the males are offered as burnt offerings and the proceeds from the females buy burnt offerings, he evidently designated all the animals as burnt offerings. A female so designated must graze until blemished, as the mishna teaches. How, then, can it be offered as a peace offering?
Tosafot on Temurah 20a, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. Only an animal that must graze until it becomes blemished can render a substitute — That is, only an animal with inherent sanctity: if it cannot be offered, it cannot be sold without a blemish but must first graze. Thus, Rabbi Shimon holds that a female designated for a guilt offering or Paschal offering can be sold without a blemish, since those offerings cannot be female, and it cannot render a substitute. A female designated for a burnt offering, however, must graze and can render a substitute, since female birds can be burnt offerings. This is Rashi’s explanation.
  2. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with the Sages that surplus guilt offerings go toward communal gift offerings, and communal offerings cannot render substitutes — This is puzzling: earlier the ability to render a substitute seemed to depend on the requirement to graze, whereas here the requirement to graze seems to depend on the ability to render a substitute. Why not say that the female must graze and can render a substitute? Rather, the point is that the surplus guilt offering and the original guilt offering do not have the same law: the original can render a substitute, but the surplus goes toward communal offerings and cannot. Its eventual use as a burnt offering therefore cannot give inherent sanctity to a female designated for a guilt offering. By contrast, a surplus Paschal offering becomes a peace offering, which, like the Paschal offering itself, can render a substitute. A female designated for a Paschal offering can therefore acquire inherent sanctity.
  3. It has burnt-offering status — A poor person can bring a bird as a burnt offering. At this stage, the discussion concerns, for example, a wealthy leper who must bring a male animal as a burnt offering but designates a female instead. That female can render a substitute because, if he were poor, this same obligation could be fulfilled with a bird burnt offering, which may be female: birds are not subject to requirements of maleness or physical perfection.
  4. For there is the red heifer, called a sin offering — This is puzzling: the female bird burnt offering could fulfill the very obligation under discussion if the person became poor, but the red heifer could not fulfill the High Priest’s obligation. Why cite the red heifer when most altar sin offerings are female? The challenge is an a fortiori argument: even a female animal that cannot itself serve as a burnt offering can, according to this reasoning, render a substitute because female bird burnt offerings exist. All the more should a cow designated in place of the High Priest’s bull acquire sanctity, since that very cow could serve as a red heifer if it were red.
  5. If an individual designated a male goat instead of his female goat, it should be sanctified, since a king brings a male goat — The Gemara could also have challenged Rabbi Shimon from the earlier baraita: he says that an animal two years old, designated for a guilt offering requiring one-year-old animal, is not sanctified at all. Why, when it could serve as a guilt offering for misuse of sacred property or theft? The Gemara’s answer here would apply there too.
  6. These are two distinct bodies — Rashi explains that an individual and a king have different statuses: an individual cannot bring a king’s male goat as a sin offering, and a king cannot bring an individual’s female goat. A female designated for a burnt offering differs, because the same person could give up his property, become poor, and bring a bird burnt offering. But this explanation seems difficult in light of the Gemara’s next challenge, ‘If so, here too he does not bring a bird burnt offering.’ Even so, the female bird could itself serve as his burnt offering if he gave up his property. Rather, ‘two distinct bodies’ means that an individual cannot become king while the current king is alive, and a king cannot have an individual’s status while he is king. Rich and poor, however, are treated as one person, since either can become the other. The Gemara’s next challenge then makes sense: if the prospective king’s male goat does not acquire sanctity because he was not obligated to bring one when he sinned, although he could later become king, then a female designated for a burnt offering should likewise not acquire sanctity when, at the time his obligation arose, he was not entitled to fulfill it with a bird.
  7. Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah — He may bring a turtledove or young pigeon. Since he can fulfill his obligation with a bird even after setting aside an animal, as explained in Tractate Bava Kamma, the objection concerning a female burnt offering is answered. Rabbi Shimon’s case must therefore concern someone who vowed, ‘I undertake to bring a burnt offering’: even after setting aside an animal, he can fulfill that vow with a female bird burnt offering.
  8. They are sold to people who need burnt offerings, and their proceeds join the other property dedicated to Temple maintenance — Rabbi Eliezer holds that an unspecified dedication is for Temple maintenance. Thus, these are like unblemished animals fit for the altar that were dedicated to Temple maintenance: they cannot permanently lose their connection to the altar.
  9. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The males themselves are offered as burnt offerings — He holds that a person does not dedicate an animal fit for an altar offering to Temple maintenance instead. When the dedication is unspecified, the person intends a burnt offering, which is wholly burned for God.
Rashi on Temurah 20b, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. Where its mother has no guilt-offering status — a female guilt offering is never brought.
  2. It creates a substitute — this shows that it has inherent sanctity and must graze. In the Jerusalem Talmud’s wording: How can the females be offered as peace offerings when they themselves are consecrated as burnt offerings and must graze? A female can serve as a bird burnt offering.
  3. Furthermore, Rabbi Shimon said — that it has inherent sanctity; as explained above, Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
  4. The mishna’s ‘substitute of a guilt offering’ — whether male or female, it must graze. This is a received law: Anything that would be left to die if it were a sin offering must graze if it is a guilt offering.
  5. Offspring of a substitute — for example, someone substituted a female for his guilt offering, and she gave birth.
  6. He brings a burnt offering — because surplus offering funds go toward an individual gift offering.
  7. But isn’t a gift offering also a burnt offering? — This is not an objection. The mishna goes on to explain the difference between them.
  8. When it comes as an obligation — because the individual is required to offer it, he places his hands on it, and so on.
  9. If he was a priest — that is, the person who designated the guilt offering, gained atonement through another, and left the first to graze.
  10. Its service and its hide — those of the burnt offering bought with the surplus funds.
  11. Belong to him — he may offer it himself and take its hide, even if he is not in the priestly watch serving that week. This follows the teaching that a priest may come and offer his own sacrifices whenever he wishes, as it says: ‘He may come whenever he desires and minister.’
  12. He does not place his hands on it — communal offerings do not require the placing of hands, apart from the bull offered for an unwitting communal sin and the scapegoat. These two exceptions are a received law.
  13. Even if he is a priest — the service and hide belong to the priests of the watch, since the offering is communal. A priest from another watch may not offer it: the ancestral arrangement is, ‘I serve during my week, and you during yours.’
  14. The Gemara’s ‘both are necessary’ — it was necessary to present the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis in both cases.
  15. Had it taught us only the guilt offering — whose owner gained atonement through another animal, Rabbi Eliezer might say that it must die because of a decree: allowing its surplus funds to buy a burnt offering after atonement could lead someone to do the same before atonement, when the funds must still go toward a guilt offering.
  16. But a substitute of a guilt offering — that concern does not apply: even before atonement, a substitute is not destined to be offered. That is the received law.
  17. I might have said that Rabbi Eliezer agrees — that it must graze. Another explanation, from the Jerusalem Talmud: Rabbi Eliezer might require a substitute and its offspring to die because, while both the original and the substitute are present, someone might confuse them, leave the original to graze, and offer the substitute as a guilt offering. That would mean offering a substitute improperly and using the original’s value for a burnt offering before gaining atonement; the substitute cannot atone, because it comes through a forbidden act. But when the owner has already gained atonement, there is no such danger of confusion, so Rabbi Eliezer might agree with the Rabbis that the remaining guilt offering grazes.
  18. It itself — the substitute’s offspring would be offered as a guilt offering if the original were lost.
  19. Through a forbidden act — making a substitute violates ‘he shall not exchange it.’ Although substitutes for burnt offerings and peace offerings can be offered, those offerings do not come to provide atonement.
  20. Rav Chanina supports Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — in his statement earlier in this chapter.
  21. The second offspring is not offered — the substitute is called an offspring because it derives from another animal.
  22. The disagreement — concerns a substitute’s offspring before the owner gains atonement. Rabbi Eliezer says it must die: if it were left to graze and its value could later be offered, someone might mistakenly offer the animal itself as a guilt offering. The Rabbis say this confusion is unlikely, since the animal itself cannot be offered. After atonement, when there is no such danger of confusion, the offspring itself may be offered as a burnt offering.
  23. From Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina’s statement — that Rabbi Eliezer agrees in the earlier case, we learn that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason for his ruling about the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering is that its mother has burnt-offering status. Here, the mother has no such status.
  24. Because it is fit to be offered — the offspring is fit.
  25. He challenged him — from the mishna: ‘The substitute of a guilt offering,’ and so on.
  26. He should bring a burnt offering with their proceeds — This follows Rabbi Elazar’s wording.
Tosafot on Temurah 20b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. If the owner was a priest, its service and hide are his — This means that the priest entitled to the surplus may offer the sacrifice himself and keep its hide, even if he does not belong to the priestly watch serving that week. As a teaching cited in Bava Kamma explains, a priest may come and offer his own sacrifices whenever he wishes, based on the verse, “He may come whenever he desires and minister.” This is Rashi’s explanation.
  2. But before atonement, everyone agrees that the offspring itself is offered as a guilt offering — Why should the offspring be more eligible than its mother? The mother, as a substitute guilt offering, cannot itself be offered as a guilt offering under a law given to Moses at Sinai. Perhaps, however, this view holds that a female substitute may be offered as a guilt offering before atonement: that law applies only to a substitute itself fit to be a guilt offering, such as a male. After atonement, all surplus offerings go toward gift offerings. The discussion then says that the dispute concerns the period before atonement, on the view that even the proceeds from selling the substitute are used for a burnt offering.
  3. A person cannot gain atonement through something produced by a transgression — A substitute is produced by a transgression: the person violated “He shall not exchange it.” Although substitutes of burnt offerings and peace offerings are sacrificed, those offerings do not come to provide atonement. This is Rashi’s explanation.
  4. A second-generation offspring is not sacrificed — The offspring of a substitute is treated like a second-generation offspring. My teacher Rabbi Meir asked: Why is this a challenge? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was speaking according to Rabbi Shimon, while the Rabbis disagree and hold that all generations of offspring are sacrificed. He answered that the challenge is to the claim that everyone agrees, even Rabbi Eliezer, that a first-generation offspring is sacrificed but a second-generation offspring is not. If the second is less eligible than the first, then according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says in the mishna that the first is not sacrificed, the second certainly is not.
  5. But with a guilt offering, its mother was not designated as a burnt offering — This cannot mean that no female bird can be a burnt offering, since a female bird can be. Rather, the mother was not initially consecrated as a burnt offering: it was consecrated as a guilt offering.
  6. Their proceeds, but not the animals themselves — My teacher Rabbi Meir asked: Why is this a challenge? Earlier, the reason the animal itself is not offered was the concern that people might confuse the cases; that reason does not apply to someone who designates a female as a guilt offering. He answered that those earlier reasons apply only to the substitute itself. Its offspring, however, inherits its mother’s disqualification. How, then, can one say that the offspring of a female designated as a guilt offering is itself offered as a burnt offering? The same understanding is needed earlier in this chapter, where this mishna is used to challenge Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering is itself offered as a burnt offering.

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 20.