Temurah 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And concerning this the Gemara discusses:

Why does sanctity not take effect upon them?

Are they not already consecrated from the time of their formation in their mother’s womb, with the mother’s sanctity taking hold of each and every part added in her womb, even before they became בעלי מומין, animals with a permanent blemish? Granted, if the mother had been a non-sacred animal, this would be understandable, since the sanctity effected by the consecrator’s speech would not take effect upon them, as his intention was to consecrate only a male or a female, and not a tumtum or an androgynos. But if the mother was a consecrated animal, why should the sanctity of the mother not take effect upon them?

And we answer:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated at the time of their emergence.

The sanctity of their mother takes effect upon them only at the time of their birth, and not from the time of their formation in their mother’s womb. Since at the time of birth, when the sanctity should take effect upon them, they were already בעלי מומין, animals with a permanent blemish, sanctity no longer takes effect upon them.

And the Gemara explains:

If it enters your mind

that one might think that from the time they were in the

womb of their mother they are consecrated,

there is a difficulty:

Why does sanctity not take effect upon them?

The sanctity of their mother has already taken hold of them [that is, of their mothers]?

Rather, infer from this

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that

the offspring of consecrated animals

only

are consecrated at the time of their emergence.

Now, what the Mishna also stated in its middle clause, concerning a consecrated animal, that the sanctity effected by speech takes effect upon the offspring, but they are not consecrated with the sanctity of their mothers, is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Therefore, one may cause the sanctity of an olah or a shelamim to take effect upon them, even if the mother is a sin-offering.

And after we have learned that the tanna of our Mishna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that “the offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated at the time of their emergence,” the Gemara cites the opinion of the tanna who holds that “they are consecrated in the womb of their mother.”

And this tanna holds that the offspring of consecrated animals, from the womb of their mother

from the beginning of their formation in their mother’s womb,

are consecrated, as the Sages taught:

The Torah states [Leviticus 27]: “However, a firstborn that is born as one belonging to the Lord among animals, no man may consecrate it.” And we expound:

Had it been stated

“A firstborn that is born, he may not consecrate,”

and had it not stated “it,” nor had it stated “among animals,”

I would say

that this verse does not concern the consecration of an animal firstborn, but concerns a human firstborn and not an animal firstborn. Thus the verse would mean:

A firstborn

of a human

may not consecrate consecrated items!

That is, the verse would come to exclude a human firstborn, who may not consecrate anything to the Temple.

The verse states

“

it.”

It [

the animal firstborn]

you may not consecrate;

the firstborn born as one belonging to the Lord may not consecrate “it,” the animal firstborn.

But a person may consecrate

who is a

firstborn,

other

consecrated items,

other sacrificial offerings.

And the beraita continues:

And

if “among animals” had not been stated,

I would still say: He

a human firstborn

may not consecrate

the animal firstborn.

But others may consecrate it,

meaning that one who is not a firstborn is permitted to consecrate an animal firstborn with another sanctity!

The verse states

“

among animals,”

to say:

I was speaking of an animal.

The entire verse does not concern a human firstborn at all, but only an animal, and the Torah comes to prohibit consecrating an animal firstborn with another sanctity. This prohibition applies both to a human firstborn and to any other person. And the beraita continues:

One might think that he may not consecrate it

with another sanctity even while it is

in the womb,

in its mother’s womb.

The verse states

“

that is born as one belonging to the Lord.” And we expound: only

from

the

time that it is born as one belonging to the Lord,

from the time it is born and becomes consecrated as a firstborn,

you may not consecrate it. But you may consecrate it in the womb.

While it is in the womb of a non-sacred animal, one may consecrate it with another sanctity.

And the beraita continues:

One might even think that the offspring of all consecrated animals are the same,

that it should be permitted to transfer them to another sanctity while they are in their mothers’ wombs?!

The verse states

“

however, a firstborn.”

And we expound:

“However” makes a distinction.

The verse distinguishes between a firstborn and other consecrated animals: only in the case of a firstborn did the Torah permit consecrating it with another sanctity in its mother’s womb, but not in the case of other consecrated animals. A firstborn is formed in the womb of a non-sacred animal, and its sanctity takes effect only from the time it is born, when the womb “opens,” as it is stated [Exodus 13]: “Whatever opens the womb.” But in the case of other offspring of consecrated animals, whose mothers are consecrated, each and every part formed in their mothers’ wombs is seized by the sanctity of the mother. And the Gemara continues:

Apparently,

this tanna

holds

that

the offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated from the womb of their mother.

And he is the tanna who disagrees with our Mishna.

And we have learned, according to all opinions, that the sanctity of a firstborn takes effect when the majority of it emerges from its mother’s womb. The Gemara now discusses consecrating it with another sanctity at that same moment when the majority emerges.

Rav Amram said to Rav Sheshet: If one said concerning the firstborn,

while it was in its mother’s womb:

“When the majority of it emerges, let it be

an olah!”

That is, he consecrated it now with the stipulation that the consecration should take effect when the majority of it emerges. Two sanctities are now about to take effect upon the offspring: the sanctity of a firstborn and that of an olah. Which sanctity takes effect? The question is which sanctity is more stringent and therefore takes effect first:

is it an olah, or is it a firstborn?

The sides of the uncertainty are: Is

it an olah,

since

it is an olah offering that is

entirely burned,

being burned in its entirety for the Lord upon the altar, and its sanctity is stringent?

Or, perhaps,

it is possible to say:

it is a firstborn, since its sanctity is from the womb.

That is, the sanctity of a firstborn is stringent in that it takes effect automatically, when the firstborn emerges from its mother’s womb, without the need to consecrate it.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Rav Amram:

What is your question?!

Is it

not

the same question that Ilfa raised?!

There was a similar question that Ilfa raised, as follows:

When one harvests his field, and at the time of harvesting he

said concerning the leket,

which belongs to the poor:

“When the majority of it falls,” [

when the grain becomes subject to the laws of leket ],

“let it be ownerless,”

for the poor and the wealthy alike! What is the law of this leket?

Is

it leket,

which the wealthy are forbidden to take?

Or is it ownerless,

which the wealthy are permitted to take, like any other ownerless property?

The sides of the uncertainty are: Is

it leket, since its sanctity is in the hands of Heaven,

and the Torah granted it to the poor?

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

it is ownerless, since both the poor and the wealthy acquire it.

And Abaye said: “What is his question

for Ilfa?! It is certainly leket, since the Holy One, blessed be He, made it leket. Can the words of the harvester, who makes the leket ownerless for the poor and the wealthy, override the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, that the leket belongs to the poor? After all,

when the words of the Master and the words of the student conflict, whose words does one obey?!”

This is how Abaye resolved Ilfa’s question. And now Rav Sheshet says concerning Rav Amram’s question:

Here too,

we should say: the words of the Master, who consecrated it as a firstborn, and the words of the student, who consecrated it as an olah—

whose words does one obey?

Certainly, one obeys the words of the Master. Therefore, it is a firstborn and not an olah.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses one who consecrates a pregnant non-sacred animal, in such a manner that he consecrates the mother with one sanctity and the fetus with another sanctity. In this case, there is no dispute over whether “they are consecrated at the time of their emergence” or “they are consecrated in the womb of their mother,” because when one consecrates a pregnant animal, the fetus is considered an entity in its own right, which receives sanctity itself and not by virtue of its mother.

One who says,

concerning a pregnant animal:

“The offspring of this one

shall be

an olah, and she,

the mother, shall be

a shelamim!”—

his words take effect.

The offspring will be an olah offering, and the mother a shelamim offering, since the sanctity of the offspring, which is an entity in its own right, preceded the sanctity of the mother.

But if he preceded the mother to the offspring and said,

“She is a shelamim, and her offspring is an olah,”

it is the offspring of a shelamim.

Since he consecrated the mother as a shelamim, he consecrated the mother and everything within her, and the fetus is considered consecrated in its own right as a shelamim. It follows that he consecrated two animals as shelamim offerings. And since the offspring became consecrated as a shelamim, his statement “its offspring is an olah” can no longer cause it to be consecrated as an olah, since it had already been consecrated as a shelamim. These are

the words of Rabbi Meir,

who holds: “We seize the first expression.”

Rabbi Yose says:

If he initially intended

to consecrate the offspring as an olah,

when he first intended,

at the time he consecrated the mother as a shelamim,

since it is impossible to utter two designations simultaneously,

as the mouth cannot say two things at once,

his words take effect.

The offspring is an olah, because “a person is also caught by the conclusion of his statement,” and when he said “she is a shelamim,” he did not intend to cause the sanctity of a shelamim to take effect upon the offspring.

But if, after he said [

after he said]

“This is a shelamim,”

he reconsidered

and said,

“Its offspring is an olah,”—

it is the offspring of a shelamim.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

If one set aside a pregnant sin-offering, and it gave birth—

if he wishes,

if he wishes to achieve atonement

through it,

through the mother,

he achieves atonement. If he wishes, he achieves atonement through its offspring.

Its status is not that of a “sin-offering’s offspring” that is sent to die. Only when one set aside an animal as a sin-offering and it subsequently became pregnant and gave birth does the offspring go to die. But if one set aside an animal as a sin-offering while it was pregnant, the fetus is considered a sin-offering in its own right, by virtue of the consecrator’s speech and not by virtue of the mother’s sanctity. It is therefore as though he set aside two sin-offerings for responsibility, so that if one is lost he can achieve atonement through the other. The law is that he achieves atonement through whichever one he wishes, while the other grazes until it develops a permanent blemish.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Rabbi Yohanan holds that when one consecrates a pregnant animal as a sin-offering,

if he left it aside,

if he left the fetus aside from the consecration, leaving it non-sacred and not consecrating it together with the mother, it is

left aside,

and it is non-sacred. That is, the fetus is an entity in its own right,

and

the fetus

is not the thigh of its mother,

meaning that it is not considered one of the limbs of the mother. And just as he can leave the fetus non-sacred, so can he consecrate it with another sanctity or consecrate it as a sin-offering in its own right,

and it is equivalent to one who set aside two sin-offerings for responsibility,

so that if

he wishes, he achieves atonement through it,

and if

he wishes, he achieves atonement through its fellow.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection

from what we learned: One said,

“She is a shelamim and her offspring is an olah,”

it is the offspring of a shelamim.

And if it enters your mind that

what he left aside is indeed left aside,

why did the Mishna say

“it is the offspring of a shelamim”?

It is not “the offspring of a shelamim,” but rather it is a shelamim in its own right. If so,

“This is a shelamim”

should have been required

to be taught!

This is what the Mishna should have said!

Since the Mishna called it “the offspring of a shelamim,” it is proven that its sanctity derives from the mother and not from the consecrator’s speech. If so, in the case of a sin-offering as well, it is “the offspring of a sin-offering,” whose law is that it must die. This presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yohanan’s statement.

And we answer:

Rav Tavla said: Exclude that one [

that is, apart from this Mishna], since it cannot be used to challenge Rabbi Yohanan, as its version is corrupt.

For

a tanna taught before Rav

the Mishna in the wording

“This is the offspring of a shelamim,”

and Rav corrected him

and said to him: Teach

the wording

“This is a shelamim.”

The beraita raises an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who says to his maidservant,

at the time of giving her a bill of manumission:

“You are a maidservant, and your offspring is free!”—

if she was pregnant,

she acquired it for him,

acquiring his freedom for the fetus through her receipt of the bill of manumission, and the offspring goes free.

Granted, if you say, "

if he leaves part of it, it is not considered left over"

and "

a fetus is its mother's thigh"—

for this reason it acquired it for him,

because

it was for him as

if

he were freeing half his slave.

And whose—

and who is the tanna who holds that one who frees half his slave goes free?—

Rabbi

is,