Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 24 for kids: A Backup Offering

תמורה כ״ד

🐣 This daf asks what happens when someone sets aside two animals for one sin offering. It also asks how the rules for offerings apply to an animal before it is born.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 24a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 24b 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 24

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 24 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 24a, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. But with two distinct sets — If he set aside two piles of money as a guarantee and used one for atonement, the other pile has been set aside. One might think Rabbi Shimon would not assign it to communal gift offerings.
  2. This teaches us — Rabbi Ami teaches that Rabbi Shimon assigns even that money to communal gift offerings.
  3. Five sin offerings are left to die — This applies in all circumstances. One of the five is a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another.
  4. He follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that an offering lost when another was designated is left to die because its owner achieved atonement with the other. One might apply the same rule to an animal designated as a guarantee once its owner achieves atonement with the first.
  5. He follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules strictly that an offering designated to replace a lost one is treated like the lost one. This suggests that even here, where the first animal was not lost but became blemished and another was designated as a guarantee, the first is left to die.
  6. He follows his father, who said that five sin offerings are left to die — His father’s rule applies in all circumstances.
  7. Because a communal sin offering is not left to die — This refers to the Yom Kippur goats.
  8. Living animals are not rejected — The death of its companion does not disqualify the first goat. Thus, he may use the sin-offering goat from the first pair for atonement. The corresponding goat from the second pair was designated as a guarantee, not to replace a lost sin offering: only the first pair’s scapegoat died. Yet the mishna implies that such a goat, if it were an individual’s sin offering, would be left to die. This challenges Rabbi Hoshaya.
  9. Rav holds — He agrees with Rabbi Yosei, who says it is a mitzva to sacrifice the first designated offering. Rabbi Yosei says this of a Passover offering that was lost and replaced, then found, although the first opinion permits either one. Accordingly, when the second sin offering is designated, it is already destined not to be used and is treated like a replacement for a lost offering. But when two sin offerings are designated as guarantees, either may be used for atonement, so neither was destined from the start to go unused.
  10. One may not skin a firstborn animal from the legs — That method removes the hide whole, for use as a bellows or a honey container. Someone who does not need the hide whole instead slits it with a knife along the belly, from throat to tail.
  11. Nor disqualified consecrated animals — This means animals that have been redeemed and slaughtered.
  12. An Israelite may not join a priest — He may not join a priest in eating the meat of a blemished firstborn animal the priest slaughtered. This shows that even after it becomes blemished, it retains its sacred status. Skinning it from the legs is therefore forbidden because it resembles work with a consecrated animal or treating it as an ordinary one.
  13. The blemished animal is redeemed — It is redeemed before the second is designated. Both sin offerings were designated for the same sin: the first became blemished, so the second was designated in its place.
  14. The blemished animal was slaughtered — This happened after it was redeemed.
  15. It is forbidden — It is treated as a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another.
  16. It is taken to the place of burning — This refers to the meat of the blemished animal. Though redeemed and slaughtered, it retains its sacred status and is called a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement. Likewise, its status remains relevant to skinning it from the legs.
  17. Both follow Beit Shammai — Just as Beit Shammai rule strictly for a firstborn animal, they rule strictly for other disqualified consecrated animals. Why assign the first clause to Beit Shammai but the second to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
  18. A firstborn animal cannot be redeemed — Scripture says, ‘You shall not redeem it.’ If someone attempts to redeem it, its sanctity does not transfer to the payment.
  19. They may be slaughtered in the marketplace — This shows that once redeemed and slaughtered, they no longer retain their sacred status.
  20. Since you permit him — Selling the meat in the marketplace brings a higher price and thus a higher redemption payment to the Temple treasury. Why not also permit skinning the animal from the legs? If the owner expects to sell the whole hide for more, he will pay more to redeem the animal.
  21. What he gains on the hide, he loses on the meat — Fearing damage to the hide, he cuts into the meat instead, lowering its sale value. There is no overall gain.
  22. Because it looks like working with consecrated animals — He makes a bellows from the hide while it is still attached to the animal. It is not actually work with a consecrated animal, since the animal is dead, but it looks like such work.
  23. A decree lest he raise from them — This refers to disqualified consecrated animals.
  24. Herds upon herds — If skinning from the legs were permitted, he might delay slaughter until bellows-makers were available, eventually raising whole herds. That could lead him to shear or work the animals, which is forbidden even after they are redeemed.
Tosafot on Temurah 24a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. And the other goat was designated as a backup, yet the mishna teaches that an individual’s sin offering is left to die — One might ask: Earlier, this mishna was used to challenge Rabbi Abba on the grounds that the other goat was designated to replace a lost offering. Why is it now treated as a backup? Here, the reasoning is that when the second goat was designated, its owner knew he would achieve atonement with the goat from the first pair, not with this one; that makes the second goat a backup. Earlier, the owner thought the first offering was lost and that he would achieve atonement with the newly designated one. Yet the mishna says that an individual’s remaining sin offering dies, apparently contradicting Rabbi Hoshaya, who says that a sin offering designated as a backup grazes. The answer follows Rav’s view that it is a mitzva to use the first offering: from the moment the second was designated, it was treated as a replacement for a lost offering, not as a backup. That also explains the earlier comparison. Alternatively, the question here may follow Rav Huna, who said above that an offering that was not lost does not die, whether according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or the Rabbis; on that basis, the second goat appeared to be a backup.
  2. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even if the blemished animal’s meat is in the pot — Why is this different from the mishna? There, the Rabbis say that even if the second animal’s blood was sprinkled while the first, blemished animal was still alive, the first is not left to die. Here, however, meat from the blemished animal is forbidden if it was slaughtered after the unblemished animal’s blood was sprinkled. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, even says that if the blemished animal’s meat is already in the pot when that blood is sprinkled, it must be burned—though the mishna permits it if the blemished animal was slaughtered before the sprinkling. The distinction is that in the mishna, the first animal was already blemished before the second was designated, so its sanctity was weaker. Here, both were designated as backups and were fit for sacrifice, so their sanctity was stronger.
Rashi on Temurah 24b, in English Tab translation (13)
  1. Mishnah: One may employ artifice — to keep the firstborn from going to the priest and designate it for an offering one is obligated to bring.
  2. If it gives birth to a male, it is offered as a burnt offering — Firstborn sanctity takes effect only at birth. Since he designated it for another sanctity beforehand, firstborn sanctity does not take effect.
  3. And if — he says, “If it gives birth to a female, it shall be my peace offering,” then if it gives birth to a female, she is offered as a peace offering.
  4. If it gives birth to two males — Both acquire the sanctity of a burnt offering, since he said, “If it is male, it shall be a burnt offering.” But he vowed to bring only one. He offers one to fulfill his vow, and sells the other to someone who needs a burnt offering; the proceeds are non-sacred.
  5. Gemara: A burnt offering, yes — Because it is burned entirely, one may change firstborn sanctity to that of a burnt offering. But one may not initially change it to the less stringent sanctity of a peace offering. All the more so, one may not blemish it and remove its sanctity altogether.
  6. Lest most of its head emerge — Then the womb has made it sacred, and blemishing it afterward would be inflicting a blemish on a sacred animal. Rav Yehuda teaches that no such decree was made: one will take care to blemish it when only a small part has emerged, before most of its head emerges. As stated in Bekhorot, a kid emerges sideways, so its ears appear first; a lamb’s mouth appears first.
  7. This is preferable — It is better to permit blemishing it before it becomes sacred, so the priest can slaughter it promptly rather than keep it until a blemish develops and risk coming to shear it or work with it.
  8. Making it deficient is preferable — That is, removing a limb before most of it emerges, thereby making it blemished.
  9. Does a female become consecrated as a firstborn? — Why would the owner need to employ artifice for a female, when the Mishnah is describing ways to do so?
  10. An animal that is consecrated — If it is a sin offering that became pregnant, the owner may wish to prevent its offspring from being put to death by giving it another sanctity. This teaches that the offspring of consecrated animals become sacred at birth, not in their mothers’ wombs. Since the fetus has not yet acquired its mother’s sanctity, he can designate it for another offering, so that at birth it is not the offspring of a sin offering.
  11. The Jerusalem Talmud’s wording: Does a female become consecrated as a firstborn? … An animal bearing its first offspring among consecrated animals — This means a consecrated animal, as explained above. “Bearing its first offspring” is not meant literally here; the Mishnah uses that wording because its opening case concerns a non-sacred animal bearing its first offspring.
  12. If it is a consecrated animal — Why is the second male sold to someone who needs a burnt offering? The first to emerge should be the burnt offering, while the other should acquire its mother’s sanctity at birth.
  13. This latter clause — The case of two males returns to a non-sacred animal. Thus the opening and latter clauses concern non-sacred animals, while the middle clause concerns a consecrated animal.
Tosafot on Temurah 24b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Mishnah: How may one employ artifice? — The Mishnah asks how to avoid the firstborn obligation by designating the fetus for another offering.
  2. If it is male, a burnt offering — The Gemara explains why it specifies a burnt offering: that designation does not lower the fetus’s sanctity, whereas a peace offering would. When the Mishnah says, “If it is female, a peace offering,” the Gemara asks why a female needs to be consecrated at all, since firstborn sanctity does not apply to her. It answers that the mother is a consecrated animal and the owner wants the fetus to have a different sanctity. The final case, in which two males are born, concerns an unconsecrated mother. Thus the opening and final cases concern unconsecrated animals, but the middle case concerns a consecrated one. My teacher Rabbi Meir asked why the Gemara did not also interpret the middle case as involving an unconsecrated animal: the final case does, yet it too mentions designation as a peace offering. He answered that the Gemara needed the middle case to illustrate the Mishnah’s question, “How may one employ artifice?”
  3. Rav Yehuda said: One may inflict a blemish on a firstborn — As tractate Bekhorot explains, this can be done to a kid’s ear or a lamb’s lips. But does Rav Yehuda disagree with Rav Huna in tractate Hullin? Rav Huna says that if one-third of a fetus emerged and its owner sold it to a gentile, then another third emerged, it is still sanctified as a firstborn: when most of it has emerged, its sanctity is revealed to have applied retroactively. Why not say the same about a blemish inflicted before most of the fetus emerged? The cases differ: a sale is more liable to error, since the owner might sell after most of the fetus has emerged.
  4. This is preferable, since otherwise one may come to shearing or working — An unblemished firstborn must be kept, creating a risk that someone will shear it or work with it. If it is born blemished, the priest can slaughter it; there is no reason to keep it. Rabbeinu Tam says that people now sell a share of the mother to a gentile before the birth, exempting the offspring from firstborn status. This is a good practice, provided the transfer is valid—for example, lifting a small animal or pulling it toward the buyer, together with payment. Tractate Bekhorot says that Rav Mari bar Rachel transferred animals to a gentile and his livestock died. One explanation is that depriving the priest of the firstborn was forbidden. Another is that Rav Mari knew how to make a valid transfer, but others might imitate him with a merely nominal one and thereby err. We follow this second explanation, which requires a valid transfer. Even under the first, selling a share to a gentile is preferable to blemishing the fetus before most of it emerges: the sale does not risk someone mistakenly inflicting a blemish after most has emerged. It also avoids the risk of shearing or working with the firstborn.

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 24.