Temurah 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Had it taught us only the first clause,

one might have said:

There, he consecrated

the fetus itself,

as an entity in its own right; therefore, sanctity takes effect upon it.

But here, since he consecrated its mother,

and did not consecrate the fetus separately,

one might say,

that

it is included within its mother and is not sacred!

Therefore, he had to teach us that it is sacred.

On the other hand,

had it taught us only the latter clause,

one might have said:

There, he consecrated it,

the mother,

and everything within it,

everything contained within her, including the fetus; and since sanctity descended upon the mother, it also descended upon the fetus.

But here, since he consecrated it,

the fetus alone, one might say:

Since it is not outside,

since it is not outside, i.e., it has not yet been born,

it is not sacred!

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us that it is sacred.

Alternatively: Rabbi Yohanan said: If one consecrated a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, he may choose

to achieve atonement through it,

or he may choose to achieve atonement through its offspring.

And we explain:

What does this teach us,

what is Rabbi Yohanan teaching us?

If he set it aside,

if he assigned the offspring to a different sanctity and did not consecrate it with its mother’s sanctity—for example, if he consecrated the mother as a sin-offering and the fetus as a burnt-offering, saying, “This shall be a sin-offering and its fetus a burnt-offering”—then it is

set aside,

and she is a sin-offering while the offspring is a burnt-offering. Or, for example, if he consecrated 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 its mother’s thigh,”

it is not one of the mother’s limbs, but an entity in its own right. These matters are derived from Rabbi Yohanan’s statement 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 the “offspring of a sin-offering,” which is sent to die.

But Bar Padda disagrees, maintaining that the fetus is not considered an entity in its own right. If one consecrated the mother and “set aside” the offspring for a different sanctity, “it is not set aside”; if she is a sin-offering, the offspring is destined to die. Likewise, if he left the offspring unconsecrated, his declaration accomplishes nothing, and it becomes sacred with its mother’s sanctity by virtue of the mother. When does it become sacred with its mother’s sanctity? According to the one who says that the offspring of consecrated animals becomes sacred in its mother’s womb, it becomes sacred immediately. And according to the one who says that the offspring of consecrated animals becomes sacred upon birth, it becomes sacred when it is born .

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need both statements,

why did Rabbi Yohanan need to teach this in a second statement, concerning one who consecrated a pregnant animal? Had he not already taught it in the first statement, when he said: Sanctity takes effect upon fetuses? This proves that the animal is considered separately and the fetus separately .

It is necessary,

he had to teach us this!

For if

he had said

only the second statement:

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

we would have said:

There is where Rabbi Yohanan said: He may achieve atonement through its offspring, because its mother is fit for consecration in her own right,

the mother is fit to be consecrated herself,

and since sanctity descends upon its mother in her own right,

since sanctity takes effect upon her herself,

it also descends,

it also descends

upon the offspring.

But here,

in his first statement,

since its mother is not consecrated,

he does not consecrate her at all,

but only the offspring; one might say,

one might say:

Sanctity will not descend upon it itself,

as an entity in its own right. Therefore,

he teaches us

Rabbi Yohanan:

This,

with regard to this law,

even though its mother is not consecrated,

nevertheless—

the offspring is sacred in its own right.

And had it been stated only in this case,

if he had taught us only his first statement, one might say that sanctity takes effect only when he consecrates the fetus separately,

because he articulates [

he expresses verbally]

sanctity upon the offspring. But in that case,

in his second statement,

where he articulates sanctity only upon the offspring’s mother,

and does not verbally express sanctity upon the offspring,

one might say,

one might say

that the offspring is not consecrated at all!

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

And therefore:

Both are necessary,

he had to state both statements.

And the Gemara relates:

He sat,

Rabbi Zeira sat

and recited this teaching.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira,

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

How does one employ a stratagem

with regard to a firstborn,

if his animal is pregnant with its first offspring and he wishes to exempt it from giving the firstborn to the priest, what should he do?

If the firstborn animal was pregnant, he says: “Whatever is in the womb of this one

shall be

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 the burnt-offering took effect before the sanctity of a firstborn, which takes effect only when it emerges from its mother’s womb. And since it had already been consecrated as a burnt-offering while it was a fetus, the sanctity of a firstborn no longer takes effect upon it when it emerges from its mother’s womb.

Apparently,

it is evident that

a fetus becomes sacred,

which is difficult for Bar Padda.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Indeed, one cannot consecrate it with inherent sanctity; rather,

when that was taught,

when that Mishna was stated, it was

with monetary sanctity,

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

And the matter is resolved: Bar Padda said that sanctity does not take effect upon the fetus only with regard to inherent sanctity; monetary sanctity does take effect upon a fetus.

And

Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

Is it powerful,

does

monetary sanctity have the power to remove it from the status of a firstborn?!

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said:

Yes!

Indeed, monetary sanctity removes it from the status of a firstborn.

And we learned,

as we learned [Bekhorot 14a]:

All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration,

which were consecrated with monetary sanctity when they were blemished,

and were redeemed, are subject to the law of the firstborn

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 maw to the priest. Although consecrated animals are exempt from the laws of the firstborn and the gifts, and even disqualified consecrated animals [which were consecrated while unblemished and subsequently became blemished] are exempt, nevertheless, if the blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed, they are obligated like entirely unconsecrated animals.

We infer:

The reason,

the entire reason they are obligated is because

they were redeemed

and even their monetary sanctity was removed from them;

but if they were not redeemed, they would be exempt

from the law of the firstborn, since they had been consecrated with monetary sanctity, for when they were consecrated while blemished, they were consecrated only with regard to their value.

Apparently,

it is evident

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

He raised an objection to him,

Rabbi Yirmeya cited a beraita that we learned:

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

to be

sheared,

and she is not like other consecrated animals, which are prohibited from being sheared, because the mother was not consecrated,

but she is prohibited from labor, because of the fetus within her being weakened,

as the mother’s labor weakens the fetus.

Thus, the fetus is sacred, which is difficult for Bar Padda.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said:

This too,

this beraita is speaking of a case in which it was consecrated

with monetary sanctity.

Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

Is it powerful,

does

monetary sanctity have the power to prohibit

it from shearing and labor?!

That is, can there be a prohibition against shearing and labor with regard to a fetus consecrated only with monetary sanctity, and why is the mother prohibited because her labor weakens the fetus?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said:

Yes!

Indeed, an animal consecrated with monetary sanctity is prohibited from shearing and labor.

And we learned,

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

emerge into the unconsecrated state

entirely, even

to be sheared and to perform labor.

For after they have been redeemed, they are entirely unconsecrated, since they were never consecrated with inherent sanctity: at the outset of their consecration, when they were blemished, they were consecrated only with regard to their value.

Rabbi Zeira infers:

The reason,

the entire reason they are permitted for shearing and labor is because

they were redeemed,

and their monetary sanctity was removed from them;

but before they were redeemed,

when they still possess monetary sanctity,

they are prohibited for labor.

Apparently,

it is evident that

monetary sanctity prohibits

it with regard to labor.

He raised an objection to him,

Rabbi Yirmeya cited what we learned in our Mishna:

One may not effect substitution of limbs for fetuses, nor fetuses for limbs,

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

Rabbi Zeira infers: only

may one not effect substitution,

substitution does not take hold from fetuses onto whole animals, because the Torah says, “an animal for an animal,” and a fetus is not called an “animal.”

But they do become sacred,

sanctity does take effect upon fetuses. For if sanctity did not take effect upon them at all, why did the tanna need to teach us that substitution for whole animals does not take hold from fetuses? It would be obvious: fetuses do not become sacred at all, so from what sanctity could substitution take hold in them? This is difficult for Bar Padda!

He said to him,

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

of the offspring of consecrated animals,

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

which are sacred

and remain so,

and the offspring’s sanctity derives from the mother, not from the verbal consecration of the one who consecrated it, since verbal consecration does not take effect upon fetuses—

— With regard to these fetuses, the Mishna says that although they are sacred in their mother’s womb , they cannot be made the object of substitution, because they are not called “an animal.”

Rabbi Yirmeya asks

If,

if the Mishna is indeed speaking of

the offspring of consecrated animals,

the inference should be: specifically

in their mother’s womb they cannot effect substitution ,

as explained, because in their mother’s womb they are not called “an animal”;

but outside,

when they are outside, i.e., after they have been born—

they can effect substitution ?!

How can this be said?

But we learned,

as we learned in the following Mishna:

The offspring does not effect substitution.

And this is understandable if the reference is to a fetus consecrated through verbal declaration, which is sacred with an independent sanctity and not because it is offspring; therefore, substitution can be effected with it once it is outside, but not while it is in its mother’s womb—

But if the reference is to offspring, why did the Mishna need to say that substitution cannot be effected with it because it is in its mother’s womb? Even outside, substitution cannot be effected with it .

Rabbi Zeira answers: Indeed, the reference is to the offspring of consecrated animals, but

whose Mishna is this,

whose teaching is it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said,

in the following Mishna:

The offspring does effect substitution,

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

Rabbi Yirmeya comes to prove that it is impossible to establish our Mishna as the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. From Rabbi Yosei’s response in the latter clause of the Mishna, it is evident that the tanna of the first clause is not Rabbi Yehuda.

For Rabbi Yosei argues: Just as at the inception of sanctity, if one consecrated a leg as a burnt-offering, the sanctity extends over the entire animal, so too with regard to substitution. In this way he proves that substitution can be effected by limbs for whole animals. And to which disputant is he making this argument? If you say that he is disputing Rabbi Yehuda, what proof does he bring from the inception of sanctity? Rabbi Yehuda also disagrees with him concerning the inception of sanctity, maintaining that if one says, “The leg of this animal is a burnt-offering,” the sanctity does not extend to the entire animal, as will be explained [11b]. Necessarily, then, the tanna of the first clause of the Mishna is not Rabbi Yehuda.

But

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

Rabbi Yehuda,

one should infer that the tanna kama says:

It is only with temura that they do not effect sanctification through limbs,

and the sanctity of the temura does not spread from the limb to the entire animal, and consequently does not take effect at all;

but when one consecrates,

at the initial consecration,

it does effect sanctification,

and the sanctity spreads from the leg to the entire animal. Yet Rabbi Yehuda certainly does not hold this,

for Rabbi Yehuda said: A limb is not sanctified,

meaning that the sanctity of the limb does not spread to the entire animal—

And how is it possible to say that the tanna kama is Rabbi Yehuda?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Indeed! The tanna kama of the Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda. However, since even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if one consecrated a limb upon which the animal’s life depends, the sanctity spreads to the entire animal, therefore

with what are we dealing here,

what case is the Mishna discussing?

It is discussing a limb upon which the animal’s life depends.

And the sanctity spreads to the entire animal! All of this applies to initial consecration; but the law of temura is different, and one does not effect temura with limbs, nor with limbs for whole animals, because with regard to temura it says, “animal for animal,” and limbs are not called an animal .

He raised an objection

Rabbi Yirmeya raised against Rabbi Zeira from what we learned in the Mishna below (16b): There is a stringency with regard to consecrated animals over temura.

And one consecrates limbs and fetuses, but does not effect temura with them.

It follows that one consecrates fetuses, which is difficult for Bar Padda!

And Rabbi Zeira answers:

Here too,

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

the offspring of consecrated animals,

as explained: offspring whose sanctity derives from the sanctity of the mother.

And Rabbi Yirmeya wondered:

But

if the case is

the offspring of consecrated animals, what,

what is the meaning of

“one consecrates”?

Do we say that one consecrates them through verbal consecration?

They are already sanctified,

for their sanctity comes automatically?!