Temurah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

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

If a Jew owns a pregnant animal that is a firstborn—that is, it is carrying its first offspring—and he wishes to prevent the offspring from acquiring firstborn sanctity, so that he will not have to give it to a koen, then, if he wishes to designate the offspring as a sacrifice [to fulfill an obligation, a vow, or as a voluntary offering] and bring it as an olah, he can “circumvent the law” and prevent the offspring from acquiring firstborn sanctity.

Mishna:

How does one “circumvent the law”

with regard to the firstborn,

to exempt it from firstborn sanctity?

If a firstborn animal was pregnant, its owner says

:

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

it

shall be an olah!”

And then, if

it gives birth to a male—

it is brought as an olah.

For firstborn sanctity does not take effect upon it while it is a fetus, but only when it emerges from the womb. And since he caused another sanctity to take effect upon the fetus beforehand, before firstborn sanctity took effect, firstborn sanctity does not take 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 or 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 is brought as a peace-offering.

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

If it is male,

the fetus

shall be an olah. And if it is female,

it

shall be my peace-offering,”

then, if—

a.

If it gives birth to a male and a female—

the male is brought as an olah, and the female is brought as a peace-offering.

b.

If it gives birth to two males—

Olah sanctity takes effect upon both offspring, since he said, “If it is male, it shall be an olah.” But since he vowed only one olah,

one of them is brought as an olah

for the fulfillment of his vow.

And the second is sold to those obligated to bring an olah.

That is, he may sell it to another person who wishes to purchase an olah in order to fulfill his obligation.

And its proceeds,

which he receives from the purchaser,

are unconsecrated funds.

c.

If it gives birth to two females—

one

of them

is brought as a peace-offering

to fulfill his vow,

and the other is sold to those obligated to bring a peace-offering, and its proceeds are unconsecrated funds.

d.

If it gives birth to a tumtum,

whose sex cannot be determined,

or an androgynos,

which has both male and female characteristics,

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 sacrifices . And this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a firstborn acquires sanctity only upon emerging from its mother’s womb, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 15]: “Every firstborn that is born.” We further learned that its sanctity takes effect only when most of its body has emerged from its mother’s womb. The Gemara now discusses whether it is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a fetus that is a firstborn before most of its body has emerged. For example, if a minority of its body, such as its ear or lip, has emerged, and one can inflict a blemish upon it and wishes thereby to remove it from firstborn sanctity. For after its sanctification, it is certainly prohibited by Torah law to inflict a blemish upon it, as it is stated [Leviticus 22]: “It shall have no blemish,” and we derive [Bekhorot 33b]: “‘It shall have no blemish”—[the word is vocalized] “lo yihyeh” [with a silent yod, a patah under the heh, and a segol under the second yod].

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

And he gives it to the koen, and the koen eats it with its blemish.

The Gemara raises an objection from our Mishna, for

we learned: How does one circumvent the law with regard to the firstborn?

If a firstborn animal was pregnant and was about to give birth, its owner says:

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

it

shall be an olah.”

And one may infer that only consecrating it as an

olah is not

permitted, because the sanctity of an olah is more stringent than firstborn sanctity, as an olah is entirely burned. But consecrating it as a

peace-offering,

whose sanctity is less stringent than that of an olah,

is not

initially permitted as a change from firstborn sanctity to the sanctity of a peace-offering. If so, all the more so it should be prohibited 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 could say to you: The Mishna’s statement that he was permitted only to consecrate it as an olah

applies only when the Temple is standing,

when its fat and blood are sacrificed from it.

But when I say

that I permit inflicting a blemish upon it before it is born,

I am speaking of the present time, when it is not fit to be sacrificed,

and in either event it will ultimately be eaten with its blemish.

The Gemara asks:

If Rav Yehuda was speaking about a firstborn

in the present time, what is the point of stating this?

What novelty is there in the matter!?

And we answer: Were it not for Rav Yehuda’s statement,

one might have said

we would decree—the Sages should issue a decree out of concern

lest

it

emerge

with

most of its head,

and it would already acquire sanctity through its emergence from the womb,

and he would then inflict a blemish upon it.

If he were to inflict a blemish at that point, he would violate the prohibition against inflicting a blemish upon consecrated animals, and he would not know how to distinguish between the emergence of most of the head and the emergence of only a minority. Therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that the Sages did not issue such a decree, and he must be careful to inflict the blemish before most of the head emerges. For example, in the case of a goat, on its ears, which emerge first, and in the case of a sheep, on its lips, which emerge first, as explained in Tractate Bekhorot [35a].

The Gemara raises an objection:

But say that this is also so—why did the Sages in fact not issue such a decree?

Can every person be entrusted to distinguish between the emergence of most of the head and the emergence of only a minority of the head?!

The Gemara objects:

And say that this is also so—

And we answer:

Even so, although there is concern that he will fail to take care and inflict a blemish upon it at a time when doing so is already prohibited, nevertheless, this advice is preferable, to prevent him from coming to the prohibition of shearing and working with it. It is preferable to inflict a blemish upon it while it is a fetus, so that the koen can slaughter it immediately. For if we do not permit this, and he gives it to the koen unblemished, and the koen keeps it until it develops a blemish, the koen may come to violate the prohibition against shearing and working with it. We learned in our Mishna: “If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering.” The Gemara assumed that this refers to an unconsecrated firstborn animal, and that he consecrates the fetus as a peace-offering on the condition that it is female. The Gemara therefore asks: “Female”— can it acquire firstborn sanctity?! Even if he did not consecrate it as another sacrifice, a female cannot acquire firstborn sanctity. Why, then, does he need to say this? And we answer: The latter clause does not refer to an unconsecrated firstborn animal. Rather, it comes

this,

this course of action,

is preferable to bringing it into a situation in which it may be shorn or worked.

It is preferable to inflict a blemish on it while it is still a fetus, so that the priest can slaughter it immediately. If this is not permitted, and it is given to the priest unblemished, the priest may keep it until a blemish occurs, and he may thereby stumble into the prohibition against shearing and working it.

We learned in our Mishna: “If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering.”

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.

to offer 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 be sent to die [as is the law concerning the offspring of a sin-offering]. His advice is to consecrate it: if it is male, as an olah, and if it is female, as his peace-offering .

The Mishna teaches that the offspring of consecrated animals do not acquire the sanctity of their mother while they are in her womb, and therefore one can cause another sanctity to take effect upon them. If he consecrated them as an olah or peace-offerings, then when they are born they are not the offspring of a sin-offering, but an olah or peace-offerings, and they do not go to their death. The tanna of our Mishna maintains that “the offspring of consecrated animals acquire sanctity upon their coming into existence,” only when they emerge from their mother’s womb, unlike the opinion that “they acquire sanctity in their mother’s womb.” This will be explained later in the sugya. We learned in our Mishna: “If it gives birth to two males, one of them is brought as an olah, and the other is sold to those obligated to bring an olah.” The Gemara assumed that here too the animal is consecrated. The Gemara therefore asks: They said—the Sages said in raising an objection: If it is a consecrated animal,

it comes—it gives advice involving a stratagem—

for a consecrated animal,

such as a

sin-offering

that became pregnant,

and the owner wants to devise a stratagem so that the offspring will not be put to death, as is the law of the offspring of a sin-offering. His advice is to consecrate it as a burnt-offering if it is male, and as a peace-offering if it is female .

The Mishna teaches that the offspring of consecrated animals, while in their mother’s womb, do not become sacred with the sanctity of the mother, and therefore one can cause another sanctity to take effect on them. If he consecrated them as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, then when they are born they will not be the offspring of a sin-offering, but rather a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, and they will not be put to death. The tannaitic author of our Mishna holds that “the offspring of consecrated animals become sacred when they come into being”—only when they emerge from their mother’s womb—excluding the opinion that “they become sacred in their mother’s womb,” as will be explained later in the discussion. We learned in our Mishna: “If it gives birth to two males, one of them is brought as a burnt-offering, and the other is sold to people obligated to bring burnt-offerings.” The Gemara assumes that here too the case involves a consecrated animal. Therefore, the Gemara asks: They say—the Sages raised the following objection: “If it is a consecrated animal,” why is the second sold to people obligated to bring burnt-offerings, with its money being unconsecrated? He consecrated only one of them. If so, the one whom he consecrated as a burnt-offering the one of them he designated as a burnt-offering should be a burnt-offering. But the other,

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.

why is the second sold to those obligated to bring an olah, with its proceeds being unconsecrated? He consecrated only one. If so,

the one whom he consecrated as an olah should indeed be an olah. But as for the other, the second, let it remain with the sanctity of its mother, as is the law of the offspring of consecrated animals, which acquires its mother’s sanctity upon coming into existence, and its proceeds should be consecrated. And we answer: This latter clause does not refer to a consecrated animal. Rather, we have come to unconsecrated animals. Therefore, the Mishna says that both are olot. One, however, is brought to fulfill his vow, while the other is sold to those obligated to bring an olah.

should remain with the sanctity of its mother,

according to the law of the offspring of consecrated animals, which becomes sacred with its mother’s sanctity when it comes into being, and its value should be consecrated.

And they answer:

This latter clause

is not speaking of a consecrated animal. Rather,

we have arrived at unconsecrated animals.

Accordingly, the Mishna says that both are burnt-offerings.

However, one is brought to fulfill his vow, and the other is sold to people obligated to bring burnt-offerings.

According to the conclusion, the Mishna is divided into three sections: the opening clause, the middle clause, and the final clause. The first law, concerning a firstborn animal—“If it gives birth to a male, it is brought as a burnt-offering”—speaks of an unconsecrated animal. The middle law—“If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering; if it gives birth to a female, it is brought as a peace-offering”—and the continuation of the Mishna—“If it is male, it shall be a burnt-offering, and if it is female, it shall be my peace-offering; if it gives birth to a male and a female, the male is brought as a burnt-offering and the female is brought as a peace-offering”—speak of a consecrated animal. The final clause—“If it gives birth to two males, one of them is brought as a burnt-offering and the other is sold to people obligated to bring burnt-offerings; if it gives birth to two females, one of them is brought as a peace-offering and the other is sold to people obligated to bring peace-offerings”—speaks of an unconsecrated animal . We learned in our Mishna: “If it gives birth to a tumtum or an androgynos, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Sanctity does not take effect on them.” The wording “no sanctity takes effect upon them” indicates that no sanctity takes effect at all. Even if the mother was a consecrated animal, not even the sanctity of the mother takes effect upon a tumtum or an androgynos. The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, discusses this:

According to the conclusion, the Mishna is divided into three sections: the opening clause, the middle clause, and the final clause.

The first law, concerning the firstborn—“If it gives birth to a male, it is brought as an olah”—refers to an unconsecrated animal. The middle law, “If it is female, it shall be my peace-offering; if it gives birth to a female, it is brought as a peace-offering,” and the continuation of the Mishna, “If it is male, it shall be an olah, and if it is female, it shall be my peace-offering—if it gives birth to a male and a female, the male is brought as an olah and the female is brought as a peace-offering,” refer to a consecrated animal. The final clause—“If it gives birth to two males, one of them is brought as an olah and the other is sold to those obligated to bring an olah; if it gives birth to two females, one of them is brought as a peace-offering and the other is sold to those obligated to bring a peace-offering”—refers to an unconsecrated animal .

We learned in our Mishna:

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:

“If it gives birth to a tumtum or an androgynos”—

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

The wording “no sanctity takes effect upon them” implies that sanctity does not take effect upon them at all. Even if the mother was a consecrated animal, not even the sanctity of the mother takes effect upon a tumtum or an androgynos. And concerning this the Gemara discusses:

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.