Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a case where one designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which is only brought from a male animal, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? As Rabbi Elazar states that the offspring may be sacrificed only if one designates a female animal for a burnt offering and it gives birth, 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 one who designates a female animal as a guilt offering, where there is no guilt offering status for its mother, even Rabbi Elazar concedes that its offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

The Gemara answers that this statement is nevertheless necessary, for if Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, had not informed us of this halakha, I would say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, that one who designates a female animal for a burnt offering may sacrifice the offspring as a burnt offering, is not due to the fact that there is burnt offering status for a bird with the same sex as its mother; rather it is because the offspring is fit as an offering, as it is a male, and this too, the offspring of the female that was designated as a guilt offering, is likewise fit as an offering, as it is a male. Therefore, he teaches us that this offspring is not sacrificed even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

The Gemara objects: If so, that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling is necessary to exclude the possibility that Rabbi Elazar’s reason is that the offspring is suitable as an offering, then say the following: Rather than teach us that the offspring of a female designated as a guilt offering is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, let him teach us a more expansive ruling, that its offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, despite the fact that the mother is left to graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it is sold, and the proceeds are used for the purchase of a burnt offering. And from that ruling one would know that the same is true that the offspring is not sacrificed as a guilt offering.

The Gemara explains: If he would teach us that according to Rabbi Elazar the offspring is not sacrificed as a burnt offering, I would say that it is only as a burnt offering that the offspring is not sacrificed, because he did not consecrate the mother with the same type of sanctity for the sake of which the fetus would be sacrificed. This is because the mother was consecrated as a guilt offering whereas the offspring would have been sacrificed as a burnt offering. But with regard to the option of sacrificing the offspring as a guilt offering, when the offspring has the same type of sanctity as that with which the mother was consecrated, I might say that the offspring is sacrificed as a guilt offering. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not sacrificed as a guilt offering, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a female animal for a guilt offering, which may be brought only from males, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished and then it is sold, and he brings a guilt offering with the money received for its sale. And if in the interim, he designated a male animal and his guilt offering was already sacrificed, so that a guilt offering is no longer needed, the money received for the sale of the blemished female is allocated for communal gift offerings.

Rabbi Shimon says: Since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, its value alone becomes sacred. Therefore, it may be sold without a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And why do I need to wait until the female animal that was designated as a guilt offering becomes blemished before it can be sold? Let it be sold immediately even without a blemish: Since it is a female and therefore unfit for the matter for which it was designated, this is the same thing as a blemish.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the reason that the female animal may not be sold before it becomes blemished, for we say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, therefore inherent sanctity has descended on it as well. Although it may not be sacrificed in any event, its inherent sanctity still mandates that it may not be sold until it becomes blemished. Rava says: That is to say that even if one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, as it becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, it also becomes sanctified with inherent sanctity. And as the animal is fit to be brought as a burnt offering or as a guilt offering, it is sacrificed.

It was stated that this issue is subject to a dispute of amora’im: If one consecrated a male animal with the intention of selling it and bringing a burnt offering or guilt offering with the money received for its sale, Rav Kahana says that it is sanctified with inherent sanctity, whereas Rava says that it is not sanctified with inherent sanctity. But Rava later retracted his statement and agreed with the opinion of Rav Kahana, due to the aforementioned statement of Rav Yehuda citing that which Rav said, that as the animal becomes sanctified with sanctity that inheres in its value, inherent sanctity also takes effect.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the opinion of the Rabbis and says that a female animal that was designated as a guilt offering may be sold without a blemish, as it is unfit to be sacrificed as the offering for which it was designated, and this itself is considered a blemish. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Why doesn’t Rabbi Shimon say that as sanctity that inheres in its value has descended on it, inherent sanctity should descend on it as well, and therefore it may not be sold until it becomes blemished?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says with regard to anything that is not fit itself to be sacrificed upon the altar, that inherent sanctity does not descend upon it. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its first year, such as a guilt offering of a nazirite or of a leper, but the owner brought it when it was in its second year, or a guilt offering that should be sacrificed when it is in its second year, such as a guilt offering for robbery, for misuse of consecrated property, or for a designated maidservant, and the owner brought it when it was in its first year, the offering is fit, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring a guilt offering, and he must bring another one.

Rabbi Shimon says that the offering is disqualified, as these offerings themselves are not consecrated, due to the fact that the proper time of their offering has either not yet arrived or has already passed. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon maintains that in such a case there is no inherent sanctity.

The Gemara objects: But consider the case of one who consecrates an animal whose time has not yet arrived, e.g., an animal that is less than eight days old, which is unfit to be sacrificed, and yet Rabbi Shimon said that it is sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard. This proves that according to Rabbi Shimon, even an offering that is not fit to be sacrificed has inherent sanctity. The Gemara explains that an animal whose time has not yet arrived is different, as it is fit to be offered tomorrow, i.e., automatically at a later stage, and is therefore considered to be fit for an offering.

The Gemara objects: If so, that any animal which will be fit to be sacrificed when its time arrives is sanctified with inherent sanctity, the same should also apply to a guilt offering that should be offered when it is in its second year but the owner brought it to be sacrificed when it was in its first year, as it will be fit for sacrifice in another year. Why, then, doesn’t it have inherent sanctity according to Rabbi Shimon? Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Shimon in the case of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, as he derives it from the halakha of a firstborn.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed together with the other animals. And it is considered in this regard to be like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is sanctified before the time when it is fit to be sacrificed has arrived, i.e., immediately after birth, and it is sacrificed after its time, following the eighth day, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived is sanctified before its time has arrived and is sacrificed after its time.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: The Sages taught that one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt offering