Temurah 11a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Zeira explains:

This is what it says:

Thus the Mishna is to be interpreted [or read] according to Bar Pada:

One consecrates limbs,

and since the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal, therefore

one performs substitution with them

with that animal.

But one does not perform substitution with limbs for them,

with complete animals. That is, one who consecrates limbs performs substitution with them. Since the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal, it follows that he performs substitution with complete animals; but one does not perform substitution with limbs for complete animals, as explained, that one does not perform substitution with limbs [not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yosei]—

It follows that with regard to limbs there is a stringency at the beginning of the sanctity: when one consecrates a limb, the sanctity spreads throughout the whole of it, whereas with regard to substitution—one does not perform substitution.

And with regard to fetuses, the Mishna is interpreted:

And fetuses that became consecrated in their mothers’ wombs

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

one does not perform substitution

with an animal

for them,

as long as they are in their mothers’ wombs. And this is the method of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one does not perform substitution with the offspring of consecrated animals except mei-barai, after their birth.

And what the Mishna says, “one does not perform substitution for them,” does not refer to “a stringency in consecrated matters over substitution,” for it cannot be said, “but with regard to the beginning of the sanctity, there is a stringency for them, that one consecrates them,” since there is no need whatsoever to consecrate them, as in Rabbi Yirmeya’s objection, “are they not already consecrated and standing?” Rather, since with regard to limbs the Mishna said that one performs substitution with them [and, as explained, with limbs there is indeed a stringency in sanctity over substitution], therefore the Mishna emphasizes and says that one does not perform substitution with fetuses, so that we should not err and say that one also performs substitution with fetuses.

And Rabbi Yirmeya objects:

If

if it is as you say, that the Mishna is speaking

of the offspring of consecrated animals,

one should infer:

It is only in their mothers’ wombs that they do not perform substitution; but outside,

when they are outside, after their birth,

they do,

one performs substitution with them.

And how can this be said?

But we learned: The offspring does not perform substitution!

And Rabbi Zeira explains:

This too,

this Mishna as well,

is Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring performs substitution.

And Rabbi Yirmeya objects:

If it is Rabbi Yehuda, are limbs consecrated?!

Why did that Mishna say that at the beginning of the sanctity the sanctity spread from the limb over the whole of it? For according to Rabbi Yehuda, he does not hold this; he does not agree [with Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon] that

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

the whole of it is an offering,

as explained above?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: It is indeed Rabbi Yehuda, and

here, with what are we dealing? With something

upon which the life depends,

as explained above.

And the Gemara clarifies:

Shall we say according to the tannaim,

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

We learned in a beraita:

One who slaughters the sin-offering and finds within it a living four-month-old offspring —

One [beraita] teaches,

one beraita establishes the status of that offspring as a complete sin-offering with regard to all its laws, such as:

it may be eaten only by male members of the priesthood, 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

one.

And another [tanna teaches],

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

it may be eaten by every person, it may be eaten in every place, and it may be eaten forever.

The objector held that it is impossible to establish the beraitot as referring to one who designates an empty sin-offering and it became pregnant—that is, to “offspring”—because that female, which was certainly born consecrated, became consecrated through the “power” of the mother and not through the power of the mouth, for at the time of the consecration it had not yet been formed in its mother’s womb. And the objector further holds that “the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated at their coming into being,” meaning that the sanctity takes effect upon it at the time of its birth and not earlier, whereas this offspring [that is, this female] was not born, but was removed alive after its mother was slaughtered—

and it is necessary to say that the case is one who designates a pregnant sin-offering. Therefore he objects:

Is it not a dispute between tannaim

is this not a dispute over this matter

? For one Master,

the tanna of the first beraita,

holds: Sanctity takes effect upon fetuses,

as Rabbi Yohanan says, and their sanctity is through the power of the consecrator’s mouth, from the time of their consecration [and not like the offspring of consecrated animals, which become consecrated at their birth—“at their coming into being”]. Therefore this offspring is consecrated with all the sanctity of a sin-offering, with regard to all its laws —

and one Master,

the tanna of the second beraita,

holds: Sanctity does not take effect upon fetuses,

as Bar Pada says, and their sanctity is only through their mother, and this sanctity takes effect “at their coming into being” at the time of its birth, like other offspring of consecrated animals. Therefore, since this offspring was not born but was removed alive after its mother’s slaughter, it did not have time to become consecrated, and it is entirely non-sacred.

And we reject this:

No!

The beraitot are not speaking at all of one who designates a pregnant animal [and in the case of one who designates a pregnant animal, Bar Pada and Rabbi Yohanan dispute].

Rather, they concern the offspring of consecrated animals—that is, one who consecrates a sin-offering and it becomes pregnant, and they slaughter the mother and find within it a living four-month-old offspring.

And these tannaim disagree over this,

the two tannaim of the beraitot disagree over this dispute:

For one Master,

the tanna of the second beraita,

holds: The offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated at their coming into being,

their sanctity, which comes through the mother, takes effect only from the time of their birth; and since the four-month-old was not born, therefore its status is that of non-sacred animals with regard to all its laws—

and one Master,

the tanna of the first beraita,

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

from the time of their formation in their mothers’ wombs; therefore it became consecrated with the sanctity of a sin-offering with regard to all its laws.

And if you wish, say,

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

it is one tanna—

rather, they speak of two cases:

one of these beraitot.

One of these beraitot, namely the second — speaks

of one who consecrates an animal

that is empty,

and afterward it becomes pregnant,

and the offspring was not consecrated through the sanctifying utterance, as explained, but because of the sanctity of the mother, like other offspring of consecrated animals; and since the tanna [who is also the tanna of the first beraita] holds that the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated at their coming into being, and it was not born, therefore it is not consecrated, and its status is that of non-sacred animals.

And one of them,

and one of these beraitot, namely the first, speaks of an animal

that she consecrated

when she 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 brings a Mishna in the following chapter [17a], as it is explained in a beraita, to object to Bar Pada’s words.

All animals disqualified for offering, such as an animal that copulated with a person, one that was the object of bestiality, one set aside for idolatry, one worshipped, a harlot’s payment, and an exchanged animal, if one consecrated them, bodily sanctity takes effect upon them, and they are not redeemed until a permanent blemish occurs in them; and after they are redeemed, they are forbidden for shearing and labor, as is the law of consecrated animals disqualified for offering.

But with five animals disqualified for offering, Rabbi Eliezer holds that bodily sanctity does not take effect upon them at all, but only monetary sanctity, as though one consecrated a tree [an ordinary palm tree], and they are redeemed without a blemish. And they are permitted for shearing and labor after their redemption. And he derives this from expositions of the verses, and it will be explained in its place.

And these are they: a. Crossbred—such as one born from a he-goat and a ewe. b. Tereifa—such as one whose lung was punctured. c. Born by caesarean section—one that emerged through the side where the mother was cut, and was not born through the womb. d. Tumtum—one in whom neither signs of a male nor signs of a female are discernible. Androgynos—one who has signs of a male and signs of a female.

We learned,

we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A crossbred, a tereifa, one born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos—

are not consecrated and do not consecrate.

And what it said, “and do not consecrate,” requires clarification:

And Shmuel said

to explain his words: What it said,

“are not consecrated”—

that means

with regard to substitution,

that if they are non-sacred and one exchanged them for a consecrated animal, the substitution did not take hold. And the novelty is this: even though substitution takes hold even with regard to a permanent blemish, nevertheless substitution does not take effect upon these. And all the more so, if one consecrated them at the beginning of the sanctity, they are not consecrated with bodily sanctity but only with monetary sanctity, as explained.

And what it said

“and do not consecrate”—

that means:

to make substitution,

that if they are consecrated [and further on it will be explained how it is possible for them to be consecrated] and one exchanged a non-sacred animal for them, the substitution does not take hold.

And it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi said

Rabbi Meir: Since

they themselves

are not consecrated—

how can they consecrate,

that is, they are like an ordinary tree, and they contain no bodily sanctity whatsoever; from where could substitution take hold through them, and why was it necessary to say that one does not effect consecration upon them?

And he answers:

You cannot find

that they are consecrated

except when one consecrates an animal

with bodily sanctity

and afterward it becomes a tereifa,

and through its becoming a tereifa its sanctity did not leave it. In this manner it was necessary to inform us that one does not effect consecration with a non-sacred animal through it, even though it is consecrated.

And likewise,

when one consecrates an offspring

in its mother’s womb, and bodily sanctity takes hold upon it,

and it emerges through the side,

and in this manner it was necessary to inform us that one does not effect consecration with a non-sacred animal through it, even though it is consecrated.

And the Gemara concludes its objection:

Apparently,

from Rabbi Meir’s words, who says that if one consecrated the offspring it is consecrated with bodily sanctity, it is proven that

an offspring becomes consecrated.

And this is difficult for Bar Pada?

And we answer:

They say,

let it be said thus: Indeed, it is a conclusive proof, and

with a complete fetus in the womb of a complete female—

even Bar Pada agrees that it becomes consecrated—

They did not disagree

Bar Pada and Rabbi Yohanan

except with regard to a complete fetus in the womb of a blemished female.

And according to what reasoning did they disagree?

Bar Pada holds: Since its mother does not become consecrated

with bodily sanctity, it too does not become consecrated

with bodily sanctity, even though it is unblemished.

But

whereas

Rabbi Yohanan holds: These are like two animals. It is its mother who does not become consecrated

because she is blemished,

but it is consecrated.

Alternatively,

and according to this wording, the Gemara objects from the continuation of Rabbi Meir’s words. For there we find that after Rabbi Meir explains Rabbi Eliezer’s words with regard to a tereifa and one born by caesarean section, he also explains his words with regard to a crossbred, a tumtum, and an androgynos, and these are his words:

But a crossbred, a tumtum, and an androgynos,

which are disqualified from the time of their formation in their mothers’ wombs,

you cannot find

that one consecrates them and bodily sanctity takes effect upon them

except with the offspring of consecrated animals,

whose mother was consecrated when she was empty, became pregnant, and gave birth to a crossbred, a tumtum, or an androgynos,

and

Rabbi Eliezer holds

like Rabbi Yehuda, who would say: The offspring performs substitution.

And let us infer:

These are they,

these are the ones that do not perform substitution. Because

their bodies are not consecrated,

because they are disqualified for offering,

but other fetuses,

which are not disqualified for offering—

are consecrated,

and this is difficult for Bar Pada who holds that sanctity does not take effect upon the fetus?

Abaye said:

Indeed,

an unblemished one in the womb of an unblemished female—everyone agrees that it is sanctified in its own body.

But when do they disagree—

Bar Padda and Rabbi Yohanan? Regarding an unblemished one found

in the womb of a blemished female.

For Bar Padda holds: since its mother was not sanctified with bodily sanctity

but only for its monetary value, it too is not sanctified except for its monetary value.

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan holds: a fetus is not a part of its mother, and even though its mother was not sanctified for its body, the offspring at least is sanctified for its body.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: But is it not so that among consecrated animals, one who says, “The leg of this one is an olah”—

all of it is an olah.