Why the Words Male and Female Bring In the Calf and the Exchanged Beast

"And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings, if he offer it of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish" (Leviticus 3:1). "Male" comes to include the offspring; "female" comes to include the substitute. Now is this not an argument from logic? If the substitute, which is not growth of the consecrated animal, is offered, then the offspring, which is growth of the consecrated animal, surely should be offered! One may refute this: what of the substitute, which applies to every kind of consecrated animal, while you cannot say the same of the offspring, which does not apply to every kind? Since it does not apply to every kind, perhaps it should not be offered. Therefore Scripture teaches "male" to include the offspring. "Female" comes to include the substitute. And is this not an argument from logic? If the offspring, which does not apply to every kind of consecrated animal, is offered, then the substitute, which applies to every kind, surely should be offered! One may refute this: what of the offspring, which is growth of the consecrated animal, while you cannot say the same of the substitute, which is not such growth? Therefore Scripture teaches "female" to include the substitute. I would know only the offspring of unblemished animals and the substitute of unblemished animals; whence the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals? When it says "and if a male" it includes the offspring of blemished animals, and "and if a female" it includes the substitute of blemished animals. For what legal purpose? Samuel said: that it be offered, following Rabbi Eliezer. You might have thought Rabbi Eliezer said this only of a burnt-offering, where the name of burnt-offering rests upon its mother, but these offspring are not offered; therefore it teaches us otherwise. Rav Pappa said: it is for pasturing, and according to all opinions. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: say rather that "male" includes the substitute. He said to him: it is reasonable that "offspring" carries a male sense and "substitute" carries a female sense. And this teacher derives it from here, as it was taught: "only your holy things" (Deuteronomy 12:26), these are the substitutes; "which you have," these are the offspring; "and your vows," this is the vow; "you shall take and come." I might hear that one brings them into the Chosen House and withholds from them water and food so that they die; therefore Scripture teaches "and you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood" (ibid.). Just as you act with a burnt-offering, so you act with its substitute; and just as you act with peace-offerings, so you act with the offspring of peace-offerings and the substitute of peace-offerings. I might think the offspring of every consecrated animal is treated so; therefore it teaches "only," the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: it is not needed, for it says "it is a guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:5), it is offered but its substitute is not offered. The master said: one brings them into the Chosen House and withholds water and food so they die; therefore Scripture teaches "and you shall offer." From where would such a notion come? It is a received tradition that five sin-offerings are left to die. You might have supposed that those five are put to death by hand, but these die only through deprivation, by hand no; therefore it teaches "and you shall offer." Whose offspring is meant? If of a burnt-offering, that is male and does not bear young; if of a sin-offering, it is a received law that it goes to death; if of a guilt-offering, it is a received law that it goes to pasture, for whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a guilt-offering pastures. Rather the verse is needed for the case where one transgressed and offered it, that he has fulfilled a positive command. Rabbi Akiva says it is not needed, for it says "it is a guilt-offering"; the verse serves the teaching of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: a guilt-offering set aside for pasture which he slaughtered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Set aside, yes; not set aside, no. What is the reason? The verse says "it," let it remain in its being. Rabbi Judah says: it says "your servant smote both the lion and the bear" (1 Samuel 17:36). I would know only lion and bear; whence to include a lion together with a bear and a bear together with a lion? Therefore Scripture teaches "your servant smote both the lion and the bear."