Study Temurah folio 20A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
or for his Paschal offering or for his guilt offering, although these offerings are brought only from male animals, it is still consecrated with inherent sanctity. Therefore, if one exchanges for it a non-sacred animal, he renders that animal a substitute, which is consecrated with the same sancti
R' Shimon disagrees with the rabbis and says: The halakha is not the same in all these cases. Granted, if he consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering, it renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute, as there is burnt offering status for female birds. For this reas
This ruling is based upon the principle that no animal renders the non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it a substitute except for an animal that has inherent sanctity, which means that even if it may not be sacrificed, it must still be left to graze in order to become blemished, after which it
R' Yehuda HaNasi says, with regard to this dispute between R' Shimon and the first tanna: I do not agree with the statement of R' Shimon with regard to the Paschal offering, that a non-sacred animal exchanged for a female which was designated for a Paschal offering does not become consecrated as a
The Talmud clarifies the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi: And let him also say: I do not agree with the statement of R' Shimon with regard to a guilt offering, for the same reason that R' Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with regard to the Paschal offering, since a leftover guilt offering is sacrificed as a bur