Temurah 10b — the Talmud in English

Had it taught us only the first case—

if it had taught us only the first law, there would be room to say:

There, it is because he sanctified it ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

itself—

as an independent entity; therefore sanctity takes effect upon it.

But here, since he sanctified its mother—

and did not sanctify the fetus independently—

say,

one might say:

it is included within its mother and is not sanctified!

Therefore it was necessary to teach us that it is sanctified.

And conversely,

if he had taught us the latter case,

if he had taught us only the second law, there would be room to say:

There, it is because he sanctified it—

the mother—

and everything that is in it,

everything that is in her, including the fetus; and since sanctity descended upon the mother, it also descended upon the fetus.

But here, since he sanctified it—

the fetus alone—one might say:

since it is not outside,

since it is not outside, that is, since it has not yet been born,

it is not sanctified!

Therefore

it is necessary—

it was necessary to teach us that it is sanctified.

Alternatively: Rabbi Yohanan said: If one sanctified a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes—

he achieves atonement through it; if he wishes—

he achieves atonement through its offspring.

And we explain:

What does this teach us?

What does Rabbi Yohanan teach us?

If he left it aside

the offspring for another sanctity, and did not sanctify it with the sanctity of the mother—for example, he sanctified the mother as a sin-offering and the fetus as a burnt-offering, and said, “This shall be a sin-offering and its fetus a burnt-offering”—then it is

left aside,

and she is a sin-offering and the offspring is a burnt-offering. Or, for example, he sanctified the mother as a sin-offering and left the offspring unconsecrated, she is a sin-offering and the offspring is unconsecrated. This is because

“the fetus

is not the thigh of its mother,”

it is not one of the limbs of the mother, but rather an independent entity. And these matters are heard from what Rabbi Yohanan said: that the fetus is considered a sin-offering in its own right, and if he wishes he achieves atonement through it; it is not like a “sin-offering offspring” that goes to death.

But Bar Pada disagrees, and holds that the fetus is not considered independently. If he sanctified the mother and “left aside” the offspring for another sanctity, “it is not left aside,” and if she is a sin-offering, the law of the offspring is that it goes to death. And likewise, if he left the offspring to remain unconsecrated, he has said nothing, and it is sanctified with the sanctity of the mother by virtue of the mother. And when will it be sanctified with the sanctity of the mother? According to the one who says that the offspring of consecrated animals are sanctified in their mothers’ wombs, it is sanctified immediately. And according to the one who says that the offspring of consecrated animals are sanctified upon their birth, it is sanctified upon its birth .

And the Gemara asks:

Why do I need both,

why was it necessary for Rabbi Yohanan to teach us this in a second statement, concerning one who sanctified a pregnant animal? Had he not already taught us in the first statement, when he said: Sanctity takes effect upon fetuses? It follows that the animal is significant in its own right and the fetus in its own right ?

It is necessary,

it was necessary to teach us!

For if

he had said

only the second statement:

“He separated a sin-offering, I would have thought,”

we would have said:

There is where Rabbi Yohanan said: If he wishes, he achieves atonement through its offspring, because its mother is fit for herself—

the mother is fit to be sanctified herself—

and since sanctity descends upon its mother for herself,

and since sanctity descended upon her herself,

it also descends—

it also descends—

upon the offspring.

But here,

in his first statement,

since its mother was not sanctified,

he is not sanctifying her at all,

but rather the offspring; say,

one might say:

sanctity will not descend upon it itself

independently. Therefore

he teaches us

Rabbi Yohanan:

this matter here

with regard to this law,

that even though its mother was not sanctified,

nevertheless—

the offspring is sanctified for itself.

And if it was stated in this case,

if he had taught us only his first statement, one might say that only when he sanctified the fetus independently does sanctity take effect,

because he brings forth [the following segment explains: he articulates with his mouth]

sanctity upon the offspring. But that case,

in his second statement,

in which he brings forth sanctity only upon the mother of the offspring,

he does not articulate with his mouth sanctity upon the offspring,

say

one might say

that the offspring is not sanctified at all!

Therefore Rabbi Yohanan teaches us that the sanctity of a sin-offering takes effect upon it, and both of them were sanctified as sin-offerings for responsibility.

Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan teaches us that the sanctity of a sin-offering takes effect upon it, and that both of them were consecrated as sin-offerings for possible replacement use.

And therefore:

they are necessary,

it was necessary to state both statements.

And the Gemara relates:

he sat,

Rabbi Zeira sat

and was saying this teaching.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira,

he brought a Mishna to challenge Bar Pada, from what we learned [24b]:

How does one employ a stratagem

with regard to the firstborn,

if his animal was about to give birth to its firstborn [pregnant, with its first offspring] and he wishes to exempt it from giving it to the priest, how should he act?

If the animal about to give birth to its firstborn was pregnant, he says: “Whatever is in the womb of this one

is

a burnt-offering.”

And if

it gives birth to a male, it is

a burnt-offering,

and he offers it as a burnt-offering, because the sanctity of a burnt-offering preceded the sanctity of a firstborn’s unconsecrated status; the latter takes effect only upon its emerging from its mother’s womb. And since it had already been sanctified as a burnt-offering while it was a fetus, the sanctity of firstborn will no longer take effect upon it when it emerges from its mother’s womb.

Apparently,

it is proven that

a fetus is sanctified,

and this is difficult for Bar Pada?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Indeed, he cannot sanctify it with intrinsic sanctity, but

when that was taught

in what context was that Mishna taught?

With sanctity of monetary value,

he sanctifies it so that he can sell it without a blemish and bring a burnt-offering with its monetary value. And sanctity of monetary value can take effect upon anything, even upon a fetus. And this sanctity removes it from firstborn status, as will be explained.

And it is resolved: Bar Pada said only that sanctity does not take effect upon a fetus with regard to intrinsic sanctity; but sanctity of monetary value does take effect upon a fetus.

And

Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

Is it powerful,

is there such “power” in

sanctity of monetary value that it removes it from firstborn status?!

Why should the sanctity of firstborn not take effect when it emerges from the womb?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Yes!

Indeed, sanctity of monetary value removes it from firstborn status.

And did we not learn,

as we learned [Bekhorot 14a]:

All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration,

for he sanctified them while they were blemished, with sanctity of monetary value,

and they were redeemed, are obligated with regard to firstborn status

if they are females and give birth to a firstborn after their redemption,

and

they are likewise obligated

with regard to the gifts,

to give the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach to the priest. Although consecrated animals are exempt from firstborn status and from the gifts, and even animals disqualified from consecrated status [which were sanctified while unblemished and afterward developed a blemish] are exempt, nevertheless, if a blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed, they are obligated like animals that are entirely unconsecrated.

And we infer:

The reason,

the entire reason that they are obligated is because

they were redeemed

and even their sanctity of monetary value departed from them;

but if they were not redeemed, they are exempt

from firstborn status, since they were sanctified with sanctity of monetary value, for when they were sanctified while blemished, they were sanctified only for their monetary value.

Apparently,

it is proven

that sanctity of monetary value is powerful enough to remove it from firstborn status.

He raised an objection to him

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira from what we learned in a beraita:

One who says, “Whatever is in the womb of this one shall be a burnt-offering,” the mother is permitted

to shear,

with regard to shearing,

and she is not like other consecrated animals that are forbidden to be shorn, because the mother was not sanctified,

but she is forbidden with regard to labor, because of the fetus within her becoming emaciated,

for the mother’s labor weakens the fetus.

Thus, the fetus is sanctified, and this is difficult for Bar Pada?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

This too,

this beraita also speaks of a case in which it was sanctified

with sanctity of monetary value.

And Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

And is it powerful,

is there such power in

sanctity of monetary value, that it forbids

it with regard to shearing and labor?!

That is, is there a prohibition of shearing and labor upon a fetus when it was sanctified only with sanctity of monetary value, and why is the mother forbidden because of the fetus becoming emaciated?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Yes!

Indeed, one sanctified with sanctity of monetary value is forbidden with regard to shearing and labor.

And did we not learn,

and likewise we learned in that same Mishna: All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration and were redeemed

go out to unconsecrated status

entirely, even

to be shorn and to perform labor.

For after they have been redeemed, they are entirely like unconsecrated animals, since they were never sanctified with intrinsic sanctity; for at the outset of their sanctification, while they were blemished, they were sanctified only for their monetary value.

Rabbi Zeira infers:

The reason,

the entire reason that they are permitted with regard to shearing and labor is because

they were redeemed,

and their sanctity of monetary value departed from them;

but before they were redeemed,

when they possess sanctity of monetary value,

they are forbidden with regard to labor.

Apparently,

it is proven that

sanctity of monetary value forbids

it with regard to labor.

He raised an objection to him

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira from what we learned in our Mishna:

One may not substitute either limbs for fetuses, or fetuses for limbs,

nor fetuses or limbs for complete animals, nor complete animals for them.

Rabbi Zeira infers: Only

with regard to substitution is it that he does not perform substitution,

substitution does not take hold from fetuses upon complete animals, because with regard to substitution it is stated, “animal for animal,” and a fetus is not called an “animal.”

But they are sanctified,

sanctity takes effect upon fetuses. For if it does not take effect at all, why did the tan­ny need to teach us that substitution for complete animals does not take hold from fetuses? It is obvious! Fetus­es are not sanctified at all; from what sanctity could substitution take hold upon them? And this is difficult for Bar Pada!

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Mishna is not speaking of one who sanctified the fetus, but rather

of offspring of consecrated animals,

of a consecrated animal that became pregnant after its sanctification, or of one who sanctified a pregnant animal,

which are sanctified

and stand

and the sanctity of the offspring is by virtue of the mother, and not because of the verbal sanctification of the one who sanctified it, since verbal sanctification does not take effect upon fetuses—

And concerning these fetuses the Mishna said that although they are sanctified in their mothers’ wombs — one may not perform substitution for them, because they are not called “an animal.”

And Rabbi Yirmeya asks

If,

if indeed it is speaking of

offspring of consecrated animals,

one should infer: Specifically

in their mothers’ wombs is it that they do not perform substitution

as explained, because while in their mothers’ wombs they are not called “an animal”;

but outside,

when they are outside, that is, after they have been born—

they do perform substitution ?!

How is it possible to say this?

But did we not learn,

as we learned in the following Mishna:

An offspring does not perform substitution.

And this is understandable if we are speaking of a fetus sanctified through verbal sanctification and sanctified with independent sanctity, and not because it is an offspring; therefore, one performs substitution for it when it is outside, but one does not perform substitution for it while it is in its mother’s womb—

but if we are speaking of an offspring, why did the Mishna need to say that one does not perform substitution for it because it is in its mother’s womb? Even when it is outside, one does not perform substitution for it ?

And Rabbi Zeira answers: Indeed, it is speaking of offspring of consecrated animals,

and whose is it,

and whose Mishna is it?

It is Rabbi Judah, who says

in the following Mishna:

An offspring does perform substitution

after its emergence from its mother’s womb. Therefore, the Mishna teaches us that as long as it is in its mother’s womb, it does not perform substitution.

Rabbi Yirmeya comes to prove that it is impossible to establish our Mishna as referring to Rabbi Judah as the first tanna. From the response of Rabbi Yosei in the latter part of the Mishna, it is proven that the tanna of the first part is not Rabbi Judah.

For Rabbi Yosei argues: Just as at the beginning of sanctification, if one sanctified a leg for a burnt-offering, the sanctity spreads over the whole animal, so too with substitution. And through this he comes to prove that one performs substitution of limbs for complete animals. And to which disputant is he making this argument? If you should say that it is Rabbi Judah, what proof does he bring from the beginning of sanctification? Rabbi Judah disagrees with him also at the beginning of sanctification, and holds that if one says, “The leg of this one is a burnt-offering,” the sanctity does not spread over the entire animal, as will be explained [11b]. Necessarily, the first tanna of the Mishna is not Rabbi Judah.

But,

if, as you say, the tanna of the Mishna is

Rabbi Judah,

it should be inferred: for the first tanna says:

It is only with regard to substitution that limbs do not effect it,

and the sanctity of the substitution does not spread from the limb over the entire animal, and consequently it does not take effect at all,

but with consecration

at the beginning of the consecration,

they become consecrated,

the sanctity spreads from the limb over the entire animal; and Rabbi Judah certainly does not hold so,

for Rabbi Judah said: limbs do not become consecrated,

that is, the sanctity of the limb does not spread over the entire animal—

And how is it possible to say that the first tanna is Rabbi Judah?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Indeed! The first tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Judah. However, since even Rabbi Judah concedes that if one consecrated a limb upon which the life depends, the sanctity spread over the entire animal, therefore

here, with what are we dealing,

what is the Mishna speaking about,

with a limb upon which the life depends.

And the sanctity spreads over the entire animal! And all this is at the beginning of the consecration, but the law of substitution is different, and one does not effect substitution with limbs, nor with limbs for whole animals, because with regard to substitution it is stated, “an animal with an animal,” and limbs are not called an animal .

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection

to Rabbi Zeira from what we learned in the Mishna below [16b]: There is a stringency in consecrated animals over substitution.

And one consecrates limbs and fetuses, but one does not effect substitution.

It follows that one consecrates fetuses, and this is difficult for bar Padda!

And Rabbi Zeira answers:

Here too,

this Mishna is not speaking of one who consecrates the fetus, but rather

of the offspring of consecrated animals,

as explained: offspring whose sanctity is derived from the sanctity of the mother.

And Rabbi Yirmeya wondered:

But,

if it is speaking

of the offspring of consecrated animals, what,

what is the meaning of

“one consecrates”?

Do they consecrate them through verbal consecration?

They are already consecrated and standing,

for their sanctity comes by itself?!