Temurah 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Zeira resolves:

This is what it says:

This is how the Mishna should be interpreted [or read] according to Bar Padda:

One may consecrate limbs,

and since the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal, therefore

one may effect temura with them

with that animal.

But one may not effect temura with limbs for them

with intact animals. That is, one who consecrates limbs may effect temura with them. Since the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal, it turns out that he effects temura with an intact animal; but one may not effect temura with limbs for an intact animal, as explained, since one may not effect temura with limbs [contrary to the statement of Rabbi Yosei]—

It follows that with regard to limbs, there is a stringency at the beginning of the consecration: when one consecrates a limb, the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal, whereas with regard to temura, one may not effect temura.

And with regard to fetuses, the Mishna is interpreted as follows:

And fetuses that became consecrated in their mothers’ wombs

because of the sanctity of their mothers, such as the offspring of sacrificial animals, even though they are certainly consecrated, nevertheless—

one may not effect temura

with an animal

for them

as long as they are in their mothers’ wombs. This is the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one may effect temura with the offspring of sacrificial animals only me’everai, after they are born.

And what the Mishna says, “one may not effect temura with them,” does not refer to “a stringency with consecrated animals over temura.” For it cannot be said, “But with regard to the beginning of the consecration, there is a stringency for them, in that one consecrates them,” since there is no need whatsoever to consecrate them, as Rabbi Yirmeya asked: “Are they not already consecrated and standing?” Rather, because with regard to limbs the Mishna said that one may effect temura with them [and, as explained, with limbs there is indeed a stringency in the initial consecration over temura], the Mishna therefore emphasizes and says that one may not effect temura with fetuses, so that we should not mistakenly say that one may also effect temura with fetuses.

And Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection:

If

if, as you say, the Mishna is speaking

of the offspring of sacrificial animals,

one should infer:

It is only in their mothers’ wombs that they do not effect temura, but outside

when they are outside, after their birth,

they do,

one may effect temura with them.

And how can this be said?

But we learned in a Mishna: The offspring does not effect temura!

And Rabbi Zeira resolves:

This too,

this Mishna as well,

is the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring does effect temura.

And Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection:

If it is the view of Rabbi Yehuda, are limbs consecrated?!

Why did that Mishna say that at the beginning of the consecration the sanctity extends from the limb to the entire animal? Rabbi Yehuda does not hold this; he does not maintain [like Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon] that

one who says, “The leg of this animal is an olah offering,”—

the entire animal is an olah offering,

as explained above?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: It is indeed the view of Rabbi Yehuda, and

here, with what are we dealing? With an organ

upon which life depends,

as explained above.

The Gemara clarifies:

Shall we say that it is a dispute between tannaim,

that the dispute between Bar Padda and Rabbi Yohanan is a dispute between tannaim?

We learned in a beraita:

If one slaughters a sin offering and finds within it a live fetus four months old —

One tanna taught

that one beraita establishes the status of that offspring as that of a fully-fledged sin offering for all its laws, such as:

it may be eaten only by male members of the priestly family, and it may be eaten only within the curtains

[the place where a sin offering is eaten, in the Courtyard]

and it may be eaten only for one day and one night

alone.

And another tanna taught,

whereas a second beraita establishes its laws as those of entirely non-sacred property , such as:

it may be eaten by anyone, it may be eaten anywhere, and it may be eaten forever .

The objector assumed that it is impossible to establish the beraitot as referring to one who set aside an empty sin offering and it subsequently became pregnant—that is, to “offspring”—because that female animal, which was certainly born consecrated, became consecrated through the “power” of its mother and not through the power of the consecrator’s declaration, since at the time of the consecration it had not yet been formed in its mother’s womb. The objector further assumes that “the offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated at their emergence,” meaning that sanctity takes effect upon it at the time of its birth and not beforehand. But this offspring—that is, this female—was not born; rather, it was removed alive after its mother was slaughtered—

and it is necessary to say that the case concerns one who set aside a pregnant sin offering. He therefore asks:

Is it not a dispute between tannaim,

whether they disagree in this dispute

? For one,

the tanna of the first beraita,

holds: Sanctity takes effect upon fetuses,

as Rabbi Yohanan says, and their sanctity comes through the consecrator’s declaration, from the time of their consecration [and not like the offspring of sacrificial animals, which become consecrated at their birth—“at their emergence”]. Therefore, this offspring is consecrated with all the sanctity of a sin offering, with all its laws —

whereas another,

the tanna of the second beraita,

holds: Sanctity does not take effect upon fetuses,

as Bar Padda says, and their sanctity comes only through their mother; this sanctity takes effect “at their emergence,” at the time of their birth, like other offspring of sacrificial animals. Therefore, since this offspring was not born but was removed alive after its mother was slaughtered, it did not have time to become consecrated, and it is entirely non-sacred property.

And we reject this:

No!

The beraitot are not speaking at all about one who set aside a pregnant animal [and in the case of one who set aside a pregnant animal, Bar Padda and Rabbi Yohanan disagree].

Rather, they concern the offspring of sacrificial animals: one who consecrated a sin offering, and it became pregnant, then slaughtered the mother and found within it a live fetus four months old.

And these tannaim disagree about this matter,

the two tannaim of the beraitot disagree in this dispute:

For one,

the tanna of the second beraita,

holds: The offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated at their emergence,

their sanctity, which comes through the mother, takes effect only at the time of their birth; and since the four-month-old fetus was not born, its status is that of non-sacred property in all respects—

whereas another,

the tanna of the first beraita,

holds: The offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated in their mothers’ wombs,

from the time they are formed in their mothers’ wombs; therefore, it became consecrated with all the sanctity of a sin offering, with all its laws.

Alternatively,

if you wish, we can establish the two beraitot as not representing the opinions of two tannaim, but rather

they are one tanna—

Rather, they are speaking of two different cases:

one of these beraitot.

One of these beraitot, namely the second one , speaks

of one who consecrated an animal

that was empty,

and afterward it became pregnant,

and the offspring was not consecrated through the consecrator’s declaration, as explained, but only because of the sanctity of the mother, like other offspring of sacrificial animals. Since the tanna [who is also the tanna of the first beraita] holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated at their emergence, and this offspring was not born, it is not consecrated and its status is that of non-sacred property.

And one of them,

one of these beraitot, namely the first, speaks

of one who consecrated it

when it was

pregnant,

and the tanna holds like Rabbi Yohanan, that sanctity takes effect upon the fetus immediately at the time of the consecration, while it is still in its mother’s womb. Therefore, the offspring became consecrated as a sin offering, and its status is that of a sin offering.

The Gemara cites a Mishna in the following chapter [17a], as it is explained in a beraita, to raise a difficulty against Bar Padda.

All animals disqualified from being offered, such as an animal that mated with a person, one that was mated with, an animal set aside for idolatry, one worshipped, an animal given as the fee of a prostitute, and an animal exchanged for a dog, if they were consecrated, acquire sanctity of the body and may not be redeemed until they develop a permanent blemish; after they are redeemed, they remain forbidden to be shorn or worked, as is the law of consecrated animals disqualified from sacrifice.

However, with regard to five animals disqualified from being offered, Rabbi Eliezer holds that sanctity of the body does not take effect upon them at all; rather, they have only sanctity of value, as though one had consecrated mere wood [an ordinary palm tree], and they may be redeemed without a blemish. After their redemption, they are permitted to be shorn and worked. He derives this from expositions of the verses, and it will be explained in its place.

These are they: a. A mixed-breed animal—for example, one born from a goat and a ewe. b. An animal with a condition that renders it tereifa—for example, one whose lung was perforated. c. An animal born by caesarean section—that emerged through the side of the mother, which was cut open, and was not born through the womb. d. A tumtum—in which neither male nor female signs are discernible. An androgynos—which has both male and female signs.

We learned in a Mishna,

we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A mixed-breed animal, an animal with a condition rendering it tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos—

are neither consecrated nor do they effect temura.

And what it said, “nor do they effect temura,” requires clarification.

And Shmuel said

to explain his words: What it said,

“are not consecrated”

means

with regard to temura,

that if they are non-sacred animals and one exchanged them for a consecrated animal, the temura did not take effect. The novelty is that even though temura takes effect even with regard to an animal with a permanent blemish, nevertheless temura does not take effect with regard to these animals. And all the more so, if one consecrated them at the beginning of the consecration, they acquire not sanctity of the body but only sanctity of value, as explained.

And what it said

“nor do they effect temura”

means

to effect temura,

that if they are consecrated [and it will be explained below how they can be consecrated] and one exchanged a non-sacred animal for them, the temura did not take effect.

And it was taught in a beraita,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi

Meir said: Since

they themselves

are not consecrated,

how can they effect temura,

that is, they are like mere wood and have no sanctity of the body whatsoever; how could temura take effect through them, and why was it necessary to say that they cannot effect temura?

And it answers:

You find

that they are consecrated

only when one consecrates an animal

with sanctity of the body

and afterward it develops a condition rendering it tereifa,

and because it became tereifa, its sanctity did not depart from it. In this case, it was necessary to teach us that non-sacred property cannot be made temura for it, even though it is consecrated.

Likewise,

when one consecrates an offspring

while it is in its mother’s womb, and sanctity of the body takes effect upon it,

and it emerges through the side,

in which case it was necessary to teach us that non-sacred property cannot be made temura for it, even though it is consecrated.

And the Gemara concludes its question:

Apparently,

from Rabbi Meir’s statement, who says that if one consecrated the offspring it is consecrated with sanctity of the body, it follows that

the offspring is consecrated —

This is difficult for Bar Padda?

And we answer:

They said:

Let us say this: Indeed, it is a conclusive proof, and

in the case of an intact fetus in the womb of an intact animal—

even Bar Padda concedes that it is consecrated—

Bar Padda and Rabbi Yohanan did not disagree

with regard to this,

but only with regard to an intact fetus in the womb of a blemished animal.

And on what principle did they disagree?

Bar Padda holds: Since its mother does not acquire

sanctity of the body, it likewise does not become consecrated

with sanctity of the body, even though it itself is intact.

But

whereas

Rabbi Yohanan holds: These are like two animals. It is only its mother that does not acquire sanctity

because she is blemished,

but it is consecrated.

Alternatively,

according to this version, the Gemara raises a difficulty from the continuation of Rabbi Meir’s statement. We find there that after Rabbi Meir explains Rabbi Eliezer’s words with regard to an animal with a condition rendering it tereifa and an animal born by caesarean section, he also explains his words with regard to a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, and an androgynos, as follows:

But with regard to a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, and an androgynos,

which are disqualified from the moment they are formed in their mothers’ wombs,

you do not find

that one consecrates them and sanctity of the body takes effect upon them

except in the case of the offspring of sacrificial animals,

whose mother was consecrated while she was empty, then became pregnant and gave birth to a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, or an androgynos,

and

Rabbi Eliezer holds

like Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The offspring does effect temura.

And we should infer:

These are the ones,

these are the ones that do not effect temura, because

their bodies are not consecrated

as a result of their being disqualified from being offered.

But other fetuses,

which are not disqualified from being offered,

are consecrated,

which is difficult for Bar Padda, who holds that sanctity does not take effect upon a fetus?

Abaye said:

Indeed,

with regard to an unblemished fetus in the womb of an unblemished animal, everyone agrees that it has intrinsic sanctity.

Rather, when do

Bar Pada and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? With regard to an unblemished fetus found

in the womb of a blemished animal.

Bar Pada holds: Since its mother is not

sanctified intrinsically but only for its value, it too is sanctified only for its value.

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: A fetus is not considered its mother’s limb, and even though its mother was not sanctified intrinsically, the offspring is nevertheless sanctified intrinsically.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: But with regard to consecrated animals, one who says, “The leg of this one is an olah offering”—

the whole of it is an olah offering.