What the Words Sheep and Goats for a Burnt Offering Include

"His offering" excludes the stolen animal. "From the sheep or from the goats" excludes the crossbred. You say these exclusions were stated for this purpose, or were they stated only to exclude an animal with which a transgression had been committed, or one that plowed with an ox and donkey together while it was consecrated, or mixed seeds in a vineyard, or work done in the Sabbatical year, on a festival, on the Day of Atonement, or on the Sabbath? Therefore Scripture teaches, "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include all of them. These are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Simeon says: Why does Scripture teach "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering"? To include the substitute animal. Is this not a matter of logic? If peace offerings, which are not fit to be brought from birds, have their substitute fit as a burnt offering, then a burnt offering, which is fit to be brought from birds, surely should have its substitute made fit. No: if you say so of peace offerings, which may be brought from females as from males, will you say the same of a burnt offering, which may not be brought from females as from males? Since it cannot be brought from females, perhaps its substitute should not be made fit either. Therefore Scripture teaches "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include the substitute. Rabbi Eliezer says: Why does Scripture teach "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering"? Because one might think only a surplus burnt offering may be brought as a burnt offering. How do we know to include the surplus of a sin offering, the surplus of guilt offerings, the surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the surplus of the bird offerings of men and women with a flux and of women after childbirth, and the surplus of the offerings of a Nazirite and a leper, and the case of one who consecrates his property and there are among it things fit for the altar, such as wines, oils, and birds? How do we know these are to be sold for the needs of that same kind, and burnt offerings brought with their proceeds? Therefore Scripture teaches "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include all of them. But the Sages say: their proceeds fall to the freewill fund. Yet is not the freewill offering also a burnt offering? What then is the difference between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages? When it comes as an obligation, one leans his hands upon it, brings its libations with it, the libations are from his own, and if he is a priest, its service and its hide are his. But when it comes as a freewill offering, one does not lean his hands upon it, does not bring libations with it, its libations are from the public funds, and even if he is a priest, its service and its hide belong to the men of the priestly watch.