We now begin the third chapter of Maseches Temurah. The subject of this chapter, and of the next one as well, is the practical stage: once temurah has taken effect and we are holding animal B - an exact copy of the original animal, carrying the very same sanctity - what do we actually do with it? The answer varies according to the type of offering, and so we will go through all the categories of sacrifices: shelamim, whose temurah is treated exactly like the mother; the todah, whose law is the same as hers in most details; and from there to the asham, and in the next chapter to the chatas as well, which cannot be offered at all.
Another point that the Mishnah includes in this chapter is a different category of animal that is also a kind of copy of a previous animal in terms of its sanctity and status - the offspring. Just as animal B, which became temurah, receives the halachic status of the original, so too the offspring born to the mother receives its mother's status.
Three introductory points regarding the law of the offspring:
The simple case: If the mother was consecrated, for example as shelamim, and only afterward conceived and gave birth - the offspring derives its status from the mother, and this is straightforward.
A mother who was already pregnant at the time of consecration: Here there is a dispute among the Amoraim. If the fetus is considered a limb of its mother, like one of her organs, then it derives its status from the mother and becomes an exact copy of her. But if it is not a limb but rather a separate entity, then it turns out that when he consecrated the animal he in effect made two consecrations at once - he consecrated the mother and the offspring together - and according to this approach the sanctity of the fetus is not derived from the mother but is a primary sanctity, coming from the one who consecrated it. We are not entering here into the resolution of this dispute, and we will discuss the topic on the assumption that we are dealing with the simple cases, in which the mother conceived after she was consecrated or after she became temurah.
A further dispute among the Tannaim: Regarding a mother who was pregnant at the time of consecration there is a dispute among the Tannaim, half of which we will see explicitly two chapters from here. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the offspring receives its mother's status only from the moment it is actually born, and while it is still in the womb it has no status at all but is waiting. According to this, in theory a person could consecrate the mother as shelamim, and afterward, when it becomes apparent that she is pregnant, say: "It is my wish that the fetus in the womb be an olah" - and his words take effect. But according to the Sages, and this is the halachah, this is not so: from the moment the fetus is developing in its mother's womb it receives from the outset the status derived from the mother. We will see more of these principles later in the chapter and in the coming chapters.
"Eilu kodashim she'veldoseihen u'temurasan kayotzei bahen":
The Mishnah opens with a list of the sacrifices in which the temurah is equal in status to the mother, to the point that it can be offered on the Altar just as she can - and these are only certain offerings, such as shelamim and todah, which are discussed in the first part of the chapter. In contrast, in the second part of the chapter and in the next chapter we will see other animals, such as the asham and the chatas, where even though the parent is offered, the offspring is not offered.
And note the precise wording of the Mishnah: not only the temurah, but "she'veldoseihen u'temurasan kayotzei bahen" - both the offspring and the temurah are exact copies of the parent, and therefore just as the mother is offered as shelamim, so too the offspring will be offered as shelamim. If animal A is a cow that was consecrated as shelamim, then whether he made temurah with her or she gave birth to an offspring - in both cases animal B will be like its mother.
And not only that, but "veldan u'vlad veldan ad sof kol ha'olam". From the original animal two animals branch out: one - the temurah, and the second - the offspring. And if these give birth to offspring, and even grandchildren and great-grandchildren, they all have one status, the status of the original mother, and they are all shelamim.
Let us therefore read the words of the Mishnah closely: "Eilu kodashim she'veldoseihen u'temurasan kayotzei bahen" - this is the list of offerings whose offspring and whose substitutes are equal in halachic status to the original animal. "Vlad shelamim" - the animal born to the shelamim; "u'temurasan" - the animal that became a substitute for the shelamim; "u'veldan u'vlad veldan" - their offspring and their offspring's offspring, both of the offspring and of the temurah; "ad sof kol ha'olam, harei eilu ki'shelamim" - for however many generations this continues, they are all treated as shelamim in every respect.
The laws of offering all of these:
It emerges that all the offspring and all the substitutes are offered on the Altar, and each and every one of them requires all the laws of shelamim:
Sprinkling of the blood and eating: Shelamim is performed with a single sprinkling of blood, and most of it is eaten by the owners.
Semichah: The owner leans his hands on the animal's head and presses down with all his strength, and so too with each and every one of these shelamim that are offered.
Nesachim and minchah: Like every shelamim and every olah, it requires the wine libation and the meal offering brought together with it, and so too with each and every one of the derivative offerings.
Waving of the breast and thigh: The breast and the thigh - the right hind leg - are given to the kohen, and there is an obligation of waving: those portions are waved together with the kohen along with the fats that go up on the Altar, and this is a separate obligation in its own right.
It is worth noting that the version of the text in the Gemara itself does not read "tenufah chazeh v'shok" but "tenufas chazeh v'shok" - meaning that the Mishnah is not dealing with eating the breast and thigh, but only with waving them.
The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer:
Rabbi Eliezer says: "v'lad shelamim lo yikrav shelamim" - the offspring is not offered; rather, it is left to graze until it dies. Why? Because of a rabbinic decree. Rabbi Eliezer is concerned that if a person could delay his shelamim and let them produce offspring and further offspring, a situation would arise in which people would maintain a sort of shelamim farm - something that saves money and is very convenient, but is likely to lead to serious mishaps. After all, shelamim are consecrated: one who slaughters and eats them transgresses the prohibitions of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple and of me'ilah, and beyond that one may not work with such an animal, and if it dies or becomes tereifah everything is forbidden. The Sages therefore ruled that the offspring of shelamim may not be offered, and in this way the mishap is cut off at the root: there is no point in delaying the shelamim so that they will produce offspring and become a small shelamim enterprise, since in any case it will not be permitted to use them.
Note that Rabbi Eliezer said this only about the offspring, not about the substitutes. The reason: there is no reason not to bring the substitute immediately, and mainly because making a substitute is not common, and we do not issue a decree over something uncommon. Therefore there is no prohibition on the substitute, and it is indeed offered.
And the Sages say: it is offered. In their view, like the view of the first tanna, the offspring are offered until the end of all generations, just as the substitute is offered. One must ask why the Sages repeat the words of the first tanna, and for now we will leave this question aside and say that this is simply a repetition, and that the Sages and the first tanna hold one and the same view. We will immediately see that there is a different approach in the words of the Sages.
Rabbi Shimon's definition of the dispute:
Rabbi Shimon holds that this is not what they disagreed about. In his view, the Sages too agree with the basic principle of Rabbi Eliezer, that a decree and a penalty should be imposed on one who delays his shelamim and lets them give birth. But a distinction must be drawn: accidents happen, and a person is not necessarily responsible for the fact that his shelamim produced offspring, and we do not penalize him for that. Therefore the first generation of offspring is offered. But a second generation, a sort of grandchildren, already falls under the penalty, since it is evident that the owner is delaying the animals and not offering them on the altar - it is no accident that he did not offer the mother and the offspring, since he is now waiting for the grandchildren to be born.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "amar Rabbi Shimon: lo nechleku al v'lad v'lad shelamim v'al v'lad v'lad temurah shelo yikrav" - regarding the grandchildren, the third generation, born from the offspring or from the substitute, all agree that there is a rabbinic penalty and they are not brought as shelamim, and in this way the phenomenon is stopped at its source, so that a person will not keep animals for generations as a shelamim enterprise. "al mah nechleku? al ha'v'lad" - about the first generation: Rabbi Eliezer says it is not offered, for already in the first generation there is a rabbinic prohibition and a penalty so that he will not delay the animals; and the Sages say that the first generation, whether the offspring of the shelamim or the offspring of the substitute, is offered, and the penalty takes effect only in the following generation.
The testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papus:
The Mishnah brings a testimony delivered by Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papus. All of these testimonies were delivered on that famous day when Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed Nasi in place of Rabban Gamliel, the well known story that forms the content of Tractate Eduyos. And here they testified "al v'lad shelamim sheyikrav shelamim" - in accordance with the view of the Sages. From here we see that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. Even so, we cannot determine whether the halachah follows the first version of the dispute or the version of Rabbi Shimon, since the law of the third generation is not mentioned here; but regarding the first generation the halachah is clear, that its law is like that of its parent.
Papus said: Rabbi Papus adds that this is not merely a halachah we have by tradition, but something he saw with his own eyes. "me'id ani, shehaysah lanu parah zivchei shelamim, va'achalnuha b'Pesach, v'achalnu v'ladah shelamim b'chag" - a cow that was consecrated as shelamim, and they ate it on Pesach, and its offspring they ate as shelamim on the following festival. So they offered and ate both the mother and the offspring, both as shelamim.
And we must consider what "b'chag" means. Usually "the Festival" without further specification refers to Sukkos. There is a positive commandment to bring the offering immediately, at the nearest festival, while the prohibition of "bal te'acher" does not take effect until three festivals have passed. Therefore, either his intention here in saying "the Festival" is Shavuos, which is the nearest opportunity, or they were unable to bring it on Shavuos - because the animal became ill or the owner became ill - and therefore they deferred bringing it until Sukkos. In any case, the testimony clearly indicates that the halachah follows the Sages: there is no penalty in the first generation of offspring, whether from the shelamim or from the substitute of the shelamim.