Temurah 24b — the Talmud in English

After we learned in the previous chapter the law of the offspring of a sin-offering, the Mishna in this chapter explains the law of the offspring of the other consecrated animals.

A pregnant animal belonging to an Israelite, which was a “firstling” [before her first birth], and the Israelite wishes that the sanctity of a firstling should not take effect upon the offspring, so that he will not have to give it to a priest—if he wishes to designate the offspring as an offering [for fulfilling his obligation, or for fulfilling his vow, or as a freewill offering], to bring it as an elevation-offering, the Israelite can “use a stratagem” and remove the offspring from the sanctity of a firstling.

Mishna:

How does one “use a stratagem”

concerning the firstling,

to exempt it from the sanctity of a firstling?

A firstling that was pregnant says

its owner:

“Whatever is in the womb of this one, if it is male,

it

shall be an elevation-offering!”

And then, if

she gives birth to a male—

it shall be brought as an elevation-offering.

For the sanctity of a firstling does not take effect upon it while it is a fetus, but only at the time of its emergence from the womb. And since he preceded and caused another sanctity to take effect upon the fetus, before the sanctity of a firstling took effect upon it, the sanctity of a firstling no longer takes effect upon it at the time of its birth.

And if he had a pregnant animal [and the Gemara will explain whether it was a consecrated animal or an unconsecrated animal

and

he said:

“If

it gives birth to a

female,

it

shall be my peace-offering!”

And

if it gives birth to a female, it shall be brought as a peace-offering.

And if he consecrated it both for an elevation-offering and for a peace-offering, saying, “

If it is male

—the fetus—let it

be an elevation-offering. And if it is female,

let it

be my peace-offering,”

then if—

a.

She gives birth to a male and a female—the

male shall be brought as an elevation-offering, and the female shall be brought as a peace-offering.

b.

She gives birth to two males—

the sanctity of an elevation-offering takes effect upon both offspring, for he said, “If it is male, it shall be an elevation-offering.” But since he vowed only one elevation-offering,

one of them shall be brought as an elevation-offering,

for his vow.

And the second shall be sold to those obligated to bring elevation-offerings.

That is, he is permitted to sell it to another person who wishes to purchase an elevation-offering for the purpose of his obligation.

And its money,

which he receives from the purchaser,

is unconsecrated.

c.

She gives birth to two females—

one

of them

shall be brought as a peace-offering,

for his vow,

and the second shall be sold to those obligated to bring peace-offerings, and its money is unconsecrated.

d.

She gives birth to a tumtum,

whose sex is not recognizable as male or female,

and an androgynos,

which has both male signs and female signs,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Sanctity does not take effect upon them,

since a tumtum and an androgynos are not fit to be brought as offerings. And this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a firstling becomes consecrated only upon its emergence from its mother’s womb, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 15], “Every firstling that is born.” And we further learned that its sanctity takes effect only at the time when the majority of its body emerges from its mother’s womb. The Gemara now discusses whether it is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a fetus that is a firstling before the majority of its body emerges. For example, if a minority of its body emerged, such as its ear or its lip, and one can inflict a blemish upon it, and he wishes thereby to remove it from the sanctity of a firstling. For after its consecration, it is certainly forbidden by Torah law to inflict a blemish upon it, as it is stated [Leviticus 22], “No blemish shall be in it,” and we expound [Bekhorot 33b]: “There shall not be”—

Rav Yehuda said: It is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a firstling before it emerges into the air of the world.

And he shall give it to a priest, and the priest shall eat it with its blemish.

And the Gemara raises an objection from our Mishna, for

we learned: How does one use a stratagem concerning the firstling?

A firstling that was pregnant in order to give birth says:

“Whatever is in the womb of this one, if it is male,

let it

be an elevation-offering.”

And it is precise to infer that only to consecrate it as an

elevation-offering is not

permitted, because the sanctity of an elevation-offering is more stringent than the sanctity of a firstling, for it is entirely offered on the altar. But to consecrate it as

a peace-offering,

whose sanctity is less stringent than that of an elevation-offering,

was not

initially permitted, to change from the sanctity of a firstling to the sanctity of a peace-offering. If so, all the more so it is forbidden to inflict a blemish upon it and remove it entirely from its sanctity.

And

if

you were to say that you can remove it from its sanctity?!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda can say to you:

What the Mishna said, that he was permitted only to consecrate it for an elevation-offering,

that applies when the Temple is standing,

and from it he offers its fat and its blood.

When I say,

what I said—that it is permitted to inflict a blemish upon it before it is born—

it is in the present time, when it is not fit to be brought as an offering,

and in either case it will ultimately be eaten with its blemish. And we object:

If,

if Rav Yehuda was speaking about a firstling

in the present time, what is the point of saying it?

What novelty is there in this matter!?

And we answer: If not for the words of Rav Yehuda,

it might have been said

we would have said that it is forbidden to inflict a blemish upon it, because

it would be decreed

that the Sages should issue a decree out of concern

lest

perhaps

it emerges

—there emerges—

the majority of its head,

and it has already become consecrated through its emergence from the womb,

and he then inflicts a blemish upon it,

and if he then inflicts a blemish upon it, he violates the prohibition against inflicting a blemish upon consecrated animals, while he does not know to be careful to distinguish between the emergence of the majority of the head and the emergence of a minority of it. Therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that they did not issue such a decree, and he must be careful to inflict the blemish upon it before the majority of its head emerges. For example, in the case of a goat, upon its ears, which emerge first, and in the case of a lamb, upon its lips, which emerge first, as explained in tractate Bekhorot [35a].

And we object:

But say this as well,

why indeed did they not issue a decree? Can each and every person distinguish between the emergence of the majority of its head and the emergence of a minority of its head?!

And we answer:

Even so,

although there is concern that he will not be careful and will inflict a blemish upon it at a time when it is already forbidden, nevertheless,

this,

this counsel,

is preferable, lest he come to the matter of shearing and working it.

It is preferable to place a blemish upon it while it is a fetus, so that the priest can slaughter it immediately. For if we do not permit him, and he gives it to a priest while it is unblemished, and the priest leaves it until a blemish develops in it, the priest may stumble into the prohibition against shearing and working it.

We learned in our Mishna:

“If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering.”

And the Gemara thought that this concerns an unconsecrated firstling animal, and that he consecrates the fetus as a peace-offering on the condition that it is female. Therefore the Gemara asks:

“Female”—

can it become consecrated as a firstling!?

For even if he did not consecrate it as another offering, a female would not have any sanctity of a firstling; why, then, does he need to say this?

And we answer:

The latter clause

does not speak of an unconsecrated firstling, but rather

comes

to give advice involving a stratagem

for a consecrated animal,

such as a sin-offering

that became pregnant,

and he wishes to use a stratagem so that the offspring will not go to death [as is the law of the offspring of a sin-offering], and his advice is to consecrate it: if it is male, as an elevation-offering, and if it is female, as a peace-offering.

And the Mishna teaches that the offspring of consecrated animals, while they are in their mothers’ wombs, are not consecrated with the sanctity of their mothers, and therefore he can cause another sanctity to take effect upon them. And if he consecrated them for an elevation-offering or peace-offerings, then when they are born they will not be the offspring of a sin-offering, but rather an elevation-offering or peace-offerings, and they do not go to death. And the tanna of our Mishna holds that “the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated upon their coming into being,” only upon their emergence from their mothers’ wombs, excluding the one who says, “They become consecrated in their mothers’ wombs,” as will be explained later in the sugya.

We learned in our Mishna:

“She gives birth to two males; one of them shall be brought as an elevation-offering, and the second shall be sold to those obligated to bring elevation-offerings.”

And the Gemara thought that here too the matter concerns a consecrated animal.

Therefore the Gemara asks:

They said,

the Sages said to raise an objection:

“If it is a consecrated animal,

why should the second be sold to those obligated to bring elevation-offerings, and its money be unconsecrated? He consecrated only one. If so,

the one whom he consecrated as an elevation-offering

the one of them whom he consecrated for an elevation-offering,

let it be

an

elevation-offering.

But

the other,

the second,

should remain with the sanctity of its mother,

as is the law of the offspring of consecrated animals, which becomes consecrated with its mother’s sanctity upon its coming into being, and its money should be consecrated.” And we answer:

This latter clause

does not concern a consecrated animal, but rather

we have come to unconsecrated animals.

Therefore, the Mishna said that both of them are elevation-offerings. It is only that one ascends for his vow, while the second is sold to those obligated to bring elevation-offerings.

And according to the conclusion, the Mishna is divided into three sections: the first clause, the middle clause, and the latter clause.

The first law, concerning a firstling, “She gives birth to a male; it shall be brought as an elevation-offering,” speaks of an unconsecrated animal. The middle law, “If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering; she gives birth to a female, it shall be brought as a peace-offering,” and likewise the continuation of the Mishna, “If it is male, an elevation-offering, and if it is female, my peace-offering—she gives birth to a male and a female; the male shall be brought as an elevation-offering, and the female shall be brought as a peace-offering,” speaks of a consecrated animal. And the latter clause, “She gives birth to two males; one of them shall be brought as an elevation-offering and the second shall be sold to those obligated to bring elevation-offerings. She gives birth to two females; one of them shall be brought as a peace-offering and the second shall be sold to those obligated to bring peace-offerings,” speaks of an unconsecrated animal.

We learned in our Mishna:

“She gives birth to a tumtum and an androgynos”—

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “Sanctity does not take effect upon them.”

From the wording, “no sanctity takes effect upon them,” it is implied that it does not take effect at all; and even if the mother had been a consecrated animal, not even the sanctity of the mother takes effect upon the tumtum and the androgynos.