Mishnah Temurah 3:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The transmission of kedusha (sanctity) to velad (offspring) and temurah (substitute) of various kodshim (sacrifices), and the specific halakhot that apply to them. The Mishnah explores the extent to which the original animal's kedusha and minui (designation) are inherited by subsequent generations or exchanges.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether velad shlamim (offspring of peace offerings) is sacrificed on the altar, or left to graze until blemished/die.
  • The treatment of a nekiva (female) designated for olah (burnt offering) or asham (guilt offering), which are typically zachar (male) offerings, and the velad of such animals.
  • The disposition of temurat asham and asham whose owner died or atoned, and whether their funds go to nedavot (communal gift offerings) or individual olah.
  • Distinctions between kodshei mizbeach (altar sacrifices) and kodshim kalim like bechor (firstborn) and ma'aser beheima (animal tithe) regarding pidyon (redemption), shechita ba'itliz (slaughter in a butcher shop), and bringing from chutz la'aretz (outside Israel).
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Temurah 3:2-3.

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Temurah 3:2: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְוַלְדָּן וְוַלְדֵּי וַלְדָּן עַד סוֹף כָּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְטְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים אֵינוֹ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קָרֵב. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל וְלַד וְלַד שְׁלָמִים וְלֹא עַל וְלַד וְלַד תְּמוּרָתוֹ, שֶׁאֵינָן קְרֵבִין. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל וְלַד שְׁלָמִים עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ קָרֵב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קָרֵב. הֵעִידוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָס עַל וְלַד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהוּא קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד, שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאֶת וְלָדָהּ אָכַלְנוּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.

Mishnah Temurah 3:3: מַה בֵּין בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר לְכָל שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים? שֶׁכָּל שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְכָל שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים נִפְדִּין, וְתַמּוּרָתָן נִפְדִּין, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְכָל שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים בָּאִין מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם בָּאוּ תְּמִימִים, קְרֵבִין. וְאִם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, נֶאֱכָלִין בְּמוּמָן, הַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֲנִים וּמַעֲשֵׂר לַבְּעָלִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מַה טַּעַם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן תַּקָּנָה בִּמְקוֹמָן. אֲבָל כָּל שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָּהֶם מוּם, קְדוּשָׁתָן עֲלֵיהֶן.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "עד סוף כל העולם" (until the end of all time): This phrase, appearing for shlamim, todah, olah (via temurah), asham (via temurah), bechor, and ma'aser, is a bold pronouncement of the perpetuity of kedusha. Yet, the Mishnah itself immediately qualifies this for velad velad shlamim, hinting that the nature of this "perpetual sanctity" might differ (e.g., le'korban vs. le'machar).
• "התודה" (the thanks offering) in Mishnah 3:2 regarding its lechem: The definite article hei hayediah is key to the derasha cited by Rambam and Tosafot Yom Tov, limiting the bread requirement to the todah itself.
• "עולה הוא" (it is a burnt offering) in Mishnah 3:2 regarding temurat olah: Tosafot Yom Tov (on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:5) clarifies that while olah (burnt offering) is grammatically feminine, the karban (sacrifice) itself is referred to in the masculine ("הוא"), resolving a potential linguistic confusion regarding the lashon ha'Mishnah.
• "באיטליז" (in the butchers' market) in Mishnah 3:3: This specific term highlights a crucial distinction in the dinim of kodshei mizbeach vs. kodshim kalim when they become blemished and are sold. The ability to sell in a public market, weighed by the litra, signifies a more secularized status for redeemed kodshei mizbeach compared to bechor and ma'aser.

Readings

1. Rambam, Mishnah Commentary, Temurah 3:2

Rambam elucidates the reason behind the unique halakha that velad and temurah of a todah do not require the accompanying loaves, unlike the todah itself. He states: "אמר רחמנא לחם התודה תודה עצמה טעונה לחם ולדה ותמורתה אינם טעונים לחם שנאמר התודה בה"א הידיעה" (The Merciful One said "the bread of the thanks offering" [Leviticus 7:12]; the todah itself requires bread, but its offspring and substitute do not require bread, as it states "the todah" with the definite article hei hayediah)¹.

• Chiddush: Rambam identifies a precise linguistic derasha from the definite article in "התודה" as the source for a critical halakhic distinction. This demonstrates how minute textual details in the pasuk can have significant ramifications for the application of mitzvot, specifically limiting the mitzvah of lechem to the principal todah offering. He further mentions the general rule that "כדרך שאתה נוהג בעולה כך אתה נוהג בתמורתה" (just as you treat a burnt offering, so you treat its substitute)², which informs the status of temurat olah.

2. Rashash, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2

The Rashash addresses a methodological question regarding the Mishnah's selected enumeration of halakhot. For temurat olah, the Mishnah states: "הרי אלו כעולה וטעונין הפשט ונתוח" (these are like a burnt offering and require flaying and cutting into pieces)³. Rashash asks why the Mishnah does not explicitly state that they also require semicha (laying hands) and nesachim (libations), as these are also fundamental requirements for an olah. He resolves this apparent omission: "נ"פ דה"ה דטעונין סמיכה ונסכים כדלעיל בשלמים (ובמנחות צ"א מרבינן סתם ולדות קדשים ותמורתן לנסכים) ולא תני הכא אלא אותן דברים שאינן בשלמים" (It is clear that they also require semicha and nesachim, as stated above for shlamim [and in Menachot 91a we derive for all unspecified veladot kodshim and their temurot that they require nesachim], and the Mishnah only lists here those things that are not present in shlamim)⁴. He adds that for todah, the phrase "ובלבד שאינן טעונות לחם" (with the only difference being that they do not require the accompanying loaves) implies that in all other aspects, they are equivalent.

• Chiddush: Rashash offers an interpretive principle for the Mishnah's style: it is not always exhaustive in its listing of halakhot. Rather, it focuses on highlighting distinctions or chiddushim, assuming the reader's knowledge of general rules. The omission of semicha and nesachim for temurat olah is not a denial of their applicability but a rhetorical choice by the Tanna, as these are either already understood (from shlamim) or derived elsewhere (Menachot 91a).

3. Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2

Tosafot Yom Tov provides several insightful notes:

• On velad todah: He cross-references Menachot 7:4 for further discussion, indicating the breadth of this sugya across the Shas.
• On "הרי אלו כתודה": He sources the inclusion of temurot in the category of todah from the pasuk "אם על תודה" (Leviticus 7:12) via a Tosefta d'Rabbanan⁵.
• On "ובלבד שאינן טעונות לחם": He echoes Rambam, citing the derasha from "על לחם התודה" (Leviticus 7:13)⁶, reinforcing the linguistic basis.
• On temurat olah: He clarifies that the Mishnah refers to a male substitute for an olah, explaining that if one designated a female as an olah, it would not be sacrificed directly but would graze until unfit, as stated later in our Mishnah⁷. This aligns with Rashi and Rambam.
• On "ולד תמורה" (offspring of a substitute): He notes a textual variant (some versions say "תמורתה" - its substitute) and clarifies the lashon of olah as grammatically feminine, yet the karban itself can be referred to in the masculine ("עולה הוא")⁸.
• On "הרי אלו כעולה": He points out that the Gemara does not explicitly derive this from a pasuk, but the Torat Kohanim does, linking it to the principle that all invalid offerings (פסולין) behave like the temurah from "אם עולה" (if a burnt offering)⁹.
• Chiddush: Tosafot Yom Tov functions as a meta-commentator, providing a rich tapestry of cross-references, linguistic clarifications, and sourcing of halakhot from derashot in Tanakh or parallel midrashim (e.g., Torat Kohanim). His notes illuminate the underlying gemaraic and midrashic foundations of the Mishnah's terse statements, essential for a deeper lomdus understanding.

Friction

The most potent kushya arises from the Mishnah's bold opening statement regarding velad shlamim: "וְלַד שְׁלָמִים וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְוַלְדָּן וְוַלְדֵּי וַלְדָּן עַד סוֹף כָּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלָמִים" (The offspring of peace offerings and their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring or their substitute animals, and even the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time. They are all endowed with the sanctity and halakhic status of peace offerings)¹⁰. This Tanna Kamma unequivocally declares that the velad shlamim (and its progeny) is a shlamim and is offered as such. Immediately following this, the Mishnah presents a machloket: "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים אֵינוֹ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קָרֵב" (Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering; rather it is sequestered and left to die. And the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed as a peace offering)¹¹.

The kushya is twofold:

1. How can the Mishnah open with such an absolute, unqualified statement only to immediately introduce a machloket that contradicts its primary assertion? This is a peculiar literary structure, almost challenging the reader to reconcile the Tanna Kamma's sweeping claim with the ensuing dispute.
2. Conceptually, what underlies R. Eliezer's radical position that velad shlamim is eino karev (not sacrificed), especially when temurat shlamim is sacrificed, and when the general principle for velad kodshim is often eino karev? What is the fundamental difference in the nature of kedusha as it applies to a velad versus a temurah?

The strongest terutz (or two, reflecting the machloket):

1. R. Eliezer's Position (Yerushalmi Temurah 3:2, 44a; Bavli Temurah 13b): R. Eliezer distinguishes sharply between temurah and velad. Temurah explicitly inherits kedusha ha'guf (sanctity of the body) le'korban because of the pasuk "והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש" (It and its substitute shall be holy)¹². This verse provides a direct equation. For velad, however, no such explicit pasuk exists. R. Eliezer holds that velad generally does not inherit kedusha ha'guf le'korban; rather, its kedusha is kedushat d'amim (sanctity of value) or kedushat machar (sanctity for sale), meaning it grazes until blemished and is sold for nedavot (communal gift offerings) or left to die. From this perspective, the Tanna Kamma's initial statement could be read as referring to kedushat d'amim or kedushat achila (sanctity for eating, if blemished), but not le'korban. The very fact that the Tanna Kamma includes "ולד ולדן" in its initial statement, which R. Shimon clarifies is eino karev even for the Rabbis, suggests the initial clause might not mean le'korban for all the stated generations. R. Eliezer would thus be consistent in applying his general rule to velad shlamim as well.

2. The Rabbis' Position (Bavli Temurah 13b-14a): The Rabbis maintain that velad shlamim is sacrificed. They distinguish shlamim from other kodshim, particularly kodshei kodshim (most holy offerings like olah or asham), which are generally eino karev. Shlamim are kodshim kalim (lesser holy offerings), and their kedusha is more expansive. The Gemara (Temurah 14a) derives this from "כל בכור זכר" (Every firstborn male)¹³, which implies that just as a bechor is kadosh from birth, so too other veladot kodshim can acquire kedusha le'korban. Rashi (Temurah 14a, s.v. "ולד שלמים קרב") explains that shlamim are unique because their kedusha is less stringent, allowing the velad to attain kedusha le'korban. The Tanna Kamma's initial statement, "הרי אלו שלמים," would then be understood as reflecting the Rabbis' view, stating the prevailing halakha before presenting the dissenting opinion. The phrase "עד סוף כל העולם" for shlamim could be understood as a unique feature of shlamim kedusha – that its velad can be korban directly, unlike other veladot. R. Shimon's clarification that velad velad shlamim is eino karev even for the Rabbis then limits this special leniency to the first generation velad.

Intertext

1. Leviticus 27:10 — "והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש" (It and its substitute shall be holy).¹⁴ This pasuk is the bedrock of the halakhot of temurah. It explicitly equates the substitute with the original consecrated animal, establishing that temurah inherits the full kedusha ha'guf of the original. This is why temurat olah is itself an olah, and temurat shlamim is a shlamim, and so forth. This explicit scriptural designation for temurah stands in stark contrast to velad, for which no such direct verse exists. This distinction forms the conceptual fault line in the machloket between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis regarding velad shlamim: R. Eliezer, perhaps driven by the lack of an explicit pasuk for velad, limits its kedusha le'korban, while the Rabbis find other derashot or rely on the nature of shlamim to include velad shlamim in direct sacrifice.

2. Menachot 91a — "סתם ולדות קדשים ותמורתן לנסכים" (unspecified offspring of consecrated animals and their substitutes require libations).¹⁵ This Gemara provides a crucial general principle regarding veladot and temurot that supports the Rashash's reading of our Mishnah. When the Mishnah states that velad shlamim and temurat olah are like their originals, and then lists some halakhot (like semicha, nesachim, tenufah for shlamim, or hafshet and nituch for olah), it doesn't mean only those halakhot apply. Rather, the Gemara in Menachot establishes a broad principle that nesachim (libations) are a default accompaniment for veladot and temurot of kodshim. This indicates that kedusha is generally inherited with its full retinue of ancillary mitzvot, unless explicitly excluded or limited by a derasha (like the bread for todah). This intertext thus reinforces the idea that kedusha of velad and temurah is comprehensive, even if not fully enumerated in every instance.

Psak/Practice

The halakha follows the opinion of the Rabbis in Mishnah Temurah 3:2, that velad shlamim is sacrificed as a shlamim (Rambam, Hilchot Temurah 4:10)¹⁶. This means that for kodshim kalim like shlamim, the kedusha of the velad is kedushat haguf lekorban (sanctity of the body for sacrifice). However, as Rabbi Shimon clarifies in our Mishnah, this applies only to the first generation velad; the velad velad shlamim (offspring of the offspring) is eino karev (not sacrificed).

This sugya offers a critical meta-psak heuristic concerning kedusha:

1. Distinction between Temurah and Velad: Temurah typically inherits full kedusha ha'guf le'korban due to explicit psukim (e.g., Leviticus 27:10). Velad, however, has a more nuanced status.
2. Distinction between Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim: The kedusha of velad is often differentiated based on the category of the original offering. Velad of kodshei kodshim (like olah, asham) generally do not become korban directly (e.g., female olah designated grazes until sold for nedavot). Velad of kodshim kalim (like shlamim) can become korban, as seen with velad shlamim. Bechor and Ma'aser Beheima, also kodshim kalim, have veladot and temurot that are eaten in their blemished state but are not sacrificed. This indicates a spectrum of kedusha and its transmission.
3. Limitations to Perpetual Sanctity: Even when kedusha extends "עד סוף כל העולם," its nature can change. For shlamim, while the first velad is le'korban, subsequent veladot are not. For bechor and ma'aser, the veladot retain sanctity but are eaten, not sacrificed, and have unique rules regarding pidyon and sale. This suggests that "perpetual sanctity" does not always imply perpetual sacrificial sanctity.

Takeaway

The Mishnah meticulously maps the contours of kedusha transmission for velad and temurah, revealing that sanctity is not a monolithic concept but a multifaceted status with varying degrees and applications, critically dependent on the original offering's classification and specific derashot.

---

¹ Rambam, Mishnah Commentary, Temurah 3:2:1. ² Ibid. ³ Mishnah Temurah 3:2. ⁴ Rashash, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:1. ⁵ Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:2. ⁶ Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:3. ⁷ Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:4. ⁸ Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:5. ⁹ Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 3:2:6. ¹⁰ Mishnah Temurah 3:2. ¹¹ Ibid. ¹² Leviticus 27:10. ¹³ Exodus 13:12; cited in Bavli Temurah 14a. ¹⁴ Leviticus 27:10. ¹⁵ Menachot 91a. ¹⁶ Rambam, Hilchot Temurah 4:10.