In Mishnah 3 of the third chapter of Maseches Temurah we deal with a person who dedicated a female animal for an offering that may only be brought from males - an olah (burnt offering) and an asham (guilt offering) - and with the law governing their offspring and their substitutes.
One who dedicates a female animal as an olah:
An olah may only be brought from a male, and therefore a female animal dedicated as an olah can never be offered on the altar. Even so, sanctity does take effect upon her, but only kedushas damim (sanctity of value) - a kind of "placeholder," in which her value is consecrated, and when she is sold her proceeds will be used to purchase a valid offering.
The question before us is what her status is in the meantime, when she has given birth to a male offspring. We have already learned that the status of the offspring is derived from the status of its mother, and here the mother was dedicated as an olah and her only deficiency is that she is female. Do we say that the offspring is an olah, and since it is male it is fit to be offered? Or perhaps the essential flaw in the mother - her being female, which prevents her from being offered - carries over to the offspring as well, so that even though it is male, the sanctity does not pass to it in a measure that would make it fit as an olah?
This is the opinion of the Tanna Kamma, and this is the halachah: the offspring, exactly like its mother, grazes until a blemish develops in it, and then it is sold, and with the proceeds of its sale - and likewise with the proceeds of the mother for this purpose, according to the Rambam - a single male olah is purchased and offered. In other words, the offspring too is not offered, just as the mother is not offered.
Rabbi Elazar disagrees and says: "hu atzmo yakriv olah" - since the entire disqualification of the mother was only that she is female, and this offspring does not have that deficiency, it is fit to be offered. The halachah does not follow his view.
A note on the names: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar:
It is worth noting that there are variant readings and versions here as to whether the name is Eliezer or Elazar. This issue comes up countless times throughout Shas, but it is especially important in view of the next Mishnah, where we find disputes in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar stand opposite one another. So then: Rabbi Eliezer - that is, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanos - is not the author of the statement in our Mishnah; the one speaking in our Mishnah is Rabbi Elazar, that is, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua.
One who designates a female as an asham:
The next case is very similar to the previous one: a person who dedicates a female animal as an asham, for example, one who says about his ewe, "This is for my asham." The asham too, like the olah, may only be brought from a male. There are six types of ashamos; most of them come from rams - mature male sheep - and some even from a young male lamb. For example, one who misappropriated consecrated property of the Beis HaMikdash is obligated to bring a ram, and instead he dedicated a female ewe.
The Mishnah says: "tir'eh ad shetista'ev" - as in the previous case, this animal is not offered; rather, she grazes until a permanent blemish develops in her. At that point, "timacher" - she is sold, "uvedameha asham" - with her proceeds a male ram is purchased, and that will be the asham.
And what if he has already offered another asham?
A person may say: I committed me'ilah and I do not want to wait; perhaps my animal will never develop a blemish, or perhaps it will take two years, and I have no desire to remain steeped in my sin all that time. So he brings a ram and offers it as an asham me'ilah, and he will deal with the female when its time comes. In such a situation a problem arises similar to the one we mentioned in the previous mishnayos, and it is destined to be the central topic of the next chapter - the chataos that are left to die.
There are five scenarios in which a chatas is brought for various kinds of sin and cannot be offered for one reason or another, and therefore is left to die. One of the five cases is someone who has already brought a different chatas, and is left holding a chatas that has nowhere to go. But the halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that taught this rule also taught that it applies only to a chatas and not to an asham. The asham is not offered, but what is to be done with it?
The Tanna Kamma says: "yiplu dameha lin'davah" - its value shall go for a nedavah offering. This is not an expression to be translated literally; it refers to something very specific. In the Beis HaMikdash there were shofaros - a kind of chest, like a charity box - and several of them were designated specifically for this purpose. The money was used to purchase communal olah offerings from public funds, and these were called 'kayitz ha'mizbe'ach', the dessert of the altar. It is a disgrace to the Beis HaMikdash for the altar to stand idle, so when there is no offering on the altar a communal olah is brought to keep the fire burning. The shofar was called by that name because of its distinctive shape. This, then, is the law of 'mosar asham' - a general situation in which a person is left with money that was designated for an asham and he cannot spend it, since he has already fulfilled his obligation of an asham.
The view of Rabbi Shimon: "timacher shelo b'mum":
Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no need to wait until a blemish develops in a female that was consecrated as an asham. Since it can never be offered as an asham because it is a female, this is like a fatal blemish - like someone who consecrated a donkey, or even a bull, as an asham, which is simply impossible. Consequently there is nothing here but kedushas damim, the retention of monetary value alone, and it can be sold immediately and an appropriate offering purchased with the proceeds.
And if you ask: why did Rabbi Shimon wait until here to state his view, when a very similar case regarding an olah was taught at the beginning of the mishnah? Why did he not say there too that it should be sold immediately? It seems the answer is that with an olah there exists a concept of an olah from a male in another form as well - the bird olah. True, a female animal is not offered as an olah, but the concept is not utterly impossible and is not an outright self-contradiction, and therefore a certain level of sanctity does take hold on the animal, one that does not allow it to be sold immediately; rather one must wait until a blemish develops in it. Generally that law applies to kedushas ha'guf, whereas this animal has only kedushas damim - making it a most unusual intermediate case. But with an asham, says Rabbi Shimon, there is no scenario whatsoever of a female asham, no such thing at all - ashamos are always males. Therefore there is nothing here but kedushas damim, and it is sold immediately, and it is converted into money to purchase the male fit for an asham. And the halachah follows the Tanna Kamma.
The temurah of an asham, its offspring and its offspring's offspring:
From here the mishnah moves on to discuss temuros, since a temurah too, in the case of a chatas, is one of the five chataos that are left to die. And here cases have been paralleled to it in which we are not dealing with a chatas but with an asham that cannot be offered. Suppose a person said of an animal "this is my asham", and afterward took another animal and effected temurah with it. What is the law of the second animal, upon which the sanctity of an asham has taken hold and which cannot be offered, since one does not bring two ashamos and one suffices?
The mishnah says that the temurah of the asham, the offspring of its temurah, and their offspring's offspring - and likewise the offspring of the asham itself when it is a female - and that entire chain until the end of all generations, all of these "yir'u ad she'yista'avu" - shall graze until they become blemished, and then they are redeemed and sold, "v'yiplu demeihen lin'davah" - and their value shall go for a nedavah offering. All the money received from these animals that carry the sanctity of an asham is called 'mosar asham' - leftover asham money that cannot be spent - and it is given for the purchase of communal olah offerings, the kayitz ha'mizbe'ach. This is the view of the Tanna Kamma, the view of the Chachamim, and this is the halachah. But we have additional opinions before us:
Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hurkanos) says "yamusu" - they shall die: This does not mean like the chataos that are left to die, where the animal is locked in a room without food - we will discuss that, with God's help, in chapter 4 - but rather that it is left to graze until it dies on its own. All the days of its life it goes out to pasture, only that it is never redeemed and never sold to bring an offering with its value.
Rabbi Elazar (ben Shamua) says "yavi b'dameihen olos" - he shall bring olos with their value: Indeed we take the money after the animal has developed a permanent blemish, only that it is not given to the communal fund for the olah of kayitz ha'mizbe'ach; rather a private olah is purchased with it and offered. The olah too is kodshei kodashim, like the asham. In his view, any 'leftover' remaining from an asham - whether he consecrated more money than was needed or whether a surplus remained - goes toward purchasing private olos, and they are offered as the private olah of the one who consecrated the money.
The difference between the view of the Tanna Kamma and the view of Rabbi Elazar, between a communal olah and an individual's olah in this matter, is something we will return to shortly in the next mishnah.
An asham whose owner died and an asham whose owner already attained atonement:
We still have several additional asham offerings in our Mishnah to discuss, ones that parallel the chataos that are left to die, and regarding them too the very same dispute applies:
An asham whose owner died: A person who, for example, committed me'ilah and designated an animal for his asham, and died before it was offered. His heirs inherit it, but they cannot offer it, since he no longer requires atonement.
An asham whose owner already attained atonement: The asham he designated was lost, or was simply not offered, and he brought a different asham for that same sin, so the first one remains in his possession without having been offered.
In both of these cases the Tanna Kamma holds "yir'u ad sheyista'avu" - they are left to graze until they develop a blemish, and then they are sold, "veyiplu demeihen linedavah" - and the money is given to the Beis HaMikdash for the purchase of communal olos, the "dessert" of the Altar. Rabbi Eliezer says "yamusu" - just as in the previous case: nothing is done with them, and they graze until they die. And Rabbi Elazar says, consistent with his earlier position, "yavi bidmeihen olos" - not money for a communal olah for the "dessert" of the Altar, but rather a private, personal olah.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned the law of one who designates a female animal for an olah - that it grazes until it becomes blemished and an olah is brought with its value, and Rabbi Elazar's dispute regarding the law of its male offspring; the law of one who designates a female animal for an asham, and the law of its value once the owner has already attained atonement with a different asham - "its value falls to nedavah," to the collection boxes in the Beis HaMikdash for the "dessert" of the Altar; Rabbi Shimon's position that it may be sold even without a blemish, and the reason for the distinction between it and the olah; and finally the three positions regarding the temurah of an asham, their offspring, and an asham whose owner died or whose owner attained atonement - nedavah, death, or olos.
In the next Mishnah we will discuss at length the ramifications of the difference between a communal olah and an individual's olah, which is the point of dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Elazar.