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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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,