§ Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita to support the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that all agree that the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed: The verse states: “If he sacrifices a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:7). Two limitations are derived from this verse: The word “lamb” indicates that the first offspring, i.e., the offspring of the peace offering, is sacrificed, but the second offspring, i.e., the offspring of the offspring, is not sacrificed.

In addition, the word “he [hu]” is interpreted as referring to the offspring of the peace offering rather than the owner, as it is obvious from the context that the owner is sacrificing the animal and the word would be unnecessary if written only for that purpose. Therefore, it teaches that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed, but the offspring of all other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed. This indicates that even those Sages who rule that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed agree that the offspring of the offspring is not sacrificed.

The Gemara clarifies the second limitation, that the offspring of other sacrificial animals is not sacrificed: The offspring of which type of offering is referred to here? If it is referring to that of a burnt offering or guilt offering, they are male and therefore not capable of giving birth to offspring. If it is referring to the offspring of a sin offering, the verse is unnecessary, as the Sages learned this halakha as a tradition that it is left to die and may not be offered.

Ravina said: The verse serves to include, in the limitation that the offspring of other sacrificial animals are not sacrificed, the offspring of an animal that was consecrated as animal tithe and then gave birth. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include the offspring of the animal tithe? It is derived through a verbal analogy between the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to animal tithe, and the word passing [avara] mentioned with regard to a firstborn animal, which is male and cannot give birth to offspring. With regard to animal tithe the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes [ya’avor] under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to a firstborn, the verse states: “And you shall set apart [veha’avarta] for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn that is a male, which you have that comes of an animal, shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12).

The Gemara answers: This verse is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that one does not derive the possible from the impossible, as in this case, where one seeks to derive by way of analogy the halakha of the offspring of animal tithe from that of a firstborn, which is a male and therefore cannot give birth. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the offspring of animal tithe is not sacrificed on the altar as an offering.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas added the testimony that he had a cow that was eaten as a peace offering on Passover, and its offspring was eaten as a peace offering on a different Festival [beḥag].

Since the term ḥag generally refers to Sukkot, the Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said with regard to sacrificial animals that once one pilgrimage Festival has passed from when they were consecrated, and the owner has not yet brought them to the Temple, each day he transgresses with regard to them the prohibition of: You shall not delay, which is derived from the verse that states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it” (Deuteronomy 23:22), already from Shavuot he must eat the offspring of the peace offering that was sacrificed on Passover. Why then did they wait until Sukkot? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: It is referring to a case where the owner was unable to sacrifice the offspring of the peace offering on Shavuot due to circumstances beyond his control, for example, if the animal was ill on Shavuot [ba’Atzeret].

Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the meaning of the word ḥag that is taught in the mishna in the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? It is referring to the festival of Shavuot, not Sukkot. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rav Zevid, why didn’t he explain the mishna in this manner? The Gemara answers: Wherever the tanna teaches the word Pesaḥ in a mishna, and he wishes also to teach something about Shavuot, he uses the term atzeret rather than the word ḥag.

The Gemara asks: If so, that the offspring of the peace offering was not sacrificed on Shavuot due to illness, as suggested by Rava, or that it was indeed sacrificed on Shavuot, as proposed by Rav Ashi, what is the purpose of the testimony of Rabbi Pappeyas? He certainly cannot be excluding the opinion shared by Rava, as might have been indicated by a straightforward reading of the mishna. The Gemara answers: His testimony serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas therefore testifies that the offspring of a peace offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, and that this was the actual practice in the Temple.

MISHNA: The offspring of a thanks offering and the substitute of a thanks offering, and the offspring of the offspring and its substitute, and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they are all like thanks offerings, with the only difference being that they do not require the accompanying loaves, unlike the thanks offering itself.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the offspring and substitute of a thanks offering do not require the accompanying loaves? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). What does the term “offer it [yakrivenu]” serve to say?

The baraita explains: The term is referring to one who designates a thanks offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place, and then the first animal was found, and now both of them stand before him available for sacrifice. From where is it derived that he may sacrifice whichever one he wants and bring its accompanying loaves with it? The verse states: “He offers a thanks offering,” indicating that he may offer either one.

One might have thought that even the second should require the accompanying loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “Offer it,” to teach that only one of them is brought with the loaves, and not two. From where is it derived that the offspring, substitutes, and replacement offerings, in the case where the animal was lost, another was separated in its place, and then the original animal was found, are included and may be sacrificed as well? The verse states: “And if…as a thanksgiving,” teaching that they may all be sacrificed as thanks offerings. One might have thought that all of them require loaves. Therefore, the verse states: “With the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” which indicates that only the thanks offering itself requires loaves, but its offspring and its substitute and its replacement do not require loaves.

MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a burnt offering, the offspring of the substitute, e.g., if one substituted a female animal for a burnt offering, and it gave birth to a male, and the offspring of the offspring of its offspring until the end of all time, they are all like burnt offerings and therefore they require flaying and cutting into pieces and must be burned completely in the fire. In the case of one who designates a female animal as a burnt offering, which may be brought only from males, and that female gave birth to a male, although it is a male, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit [sheyista’ev] and then it is sold, and he brings a burnt offering with the money received for its sale. Rabbi Elazar says: The male offspring itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering.

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna states that the offspring of a female substitute for a burnt offering is brought as a burnt offering, whereas in the latter clause the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the status of a female animal that was consecrated as a burnt offering. The Gemara therefore asks: What is different in the first clause that they do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause that they disagree?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even the first clause is taught as a matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar, and the ruling there is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. And Rava said: You may even say that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, but they disagree with Rabbi Elazar only with regard to one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering, as they maintain that the offspring may not be sacrificed because its mother may not be sacrificed. But with regard to the offspring of a substitute, since its mother, i.e., the original burnt offering that is the source of the mother’s sanctity as a substitute, may also be sacrificed, even the Rabbis concede that the offspring may be sacrificed.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that the offspring of a female designated as a burnt offering itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering? But one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (20b): The substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of that substitute, and their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, all graze until they become unfit, and then each animal is sold, and the money received for the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings.

Rabbi Eliezer says: These animals are not left to graze until they become unfit and then each animal is sold; rather they are left to die. 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. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Elazar’s statement that with the money received for its sale, yes, one brings an individual burnt offering, but the offspring of the substitute itself, no, one may not bring it as a burnt offering.

Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Elazar was speaking to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, as follows: According to me, I hold that even the offspring itself is also sacrificed as a burnt offering. But according to you, who say that the animal is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold and the money used for the purchase of burnt offerings, concede to me at least that the remainder of the money goes for the purchase of individual gift offerings, rather than communal offerings. And the Rabbis said to him in response that the remainder of the money goes for communal gift offerings.

Rava said another explanation: Rabbi Elazar says that the offspring itself is offered as a burnt offering only in a case where he designated a female animal as a burnt offering and it gave birth, since there is burnt offering status for a bird that is the same sex as its mother.