Temurah 25a — the Talmud in English

And concerning this the Gemara discusses:

Why does no sanctity take effect upon them?

Are they not consecrated from the time of their formation in the womb of their mother, and does not their sanctity, by virtue of the mother, seize each and every portion that is added in the womb of their mother, even before they became בעלי מומין? And granted that if she had been an unconsecrated animal, it would be understandable, for the sanctity of the mouth of the one who consecrates would not take effect upon them, since his intention was to consecrate only a male and a female, and not a tumtum and an androgynos. But if the mother had been a consecrated animal, why should the sanctity of the mother not take effect upon them?

And we answer:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: the offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated at their coming into being.

Only at the time of their birth does the sanctity of their mother take effect upon them, and not from the time of their formation in the womb of their mother. And since at the time of birth, when the sanctity ought to take effect upon them, they were already בעלי מומין, sanctity no longer took effect upon them.

And the Gemara explains:

if it enters your mind

that if it were to enter your mind to say that already from the time they were in the

womb of their mother they are consecrated,

it is difficult:

Why does no sanctity take effect upon them?

Behold, the sanctity of their mothers had already seized them [of their mothers]?

Rather, infer from this:

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds

the offspring of consecrated animals

only

at their coming into being are they consecrated.

And now, also what the Mishna said in the middle clause, concerning a consecrated animal, that the sanctity of the mouth takes effect upon the offspring and they are not consecrated with the sanctity of their mothers, is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And therefore he can cause the sanctity of a burnt-offering or of peace-offerings 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, “the offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated at their coming into being,” the Gemara brings the view of the tanna who holds, “in the womb of their mother are they consecrated.”

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

from the beginning of their formation in the womb of their mother

are they consecrated, as the Sages taught:

The Torah said [Leviticus 27]: “Only the firstborn that will be born to the Lord among animals, no man shall consecrate it.” And we expound:

If it had been stated

“The firstborn that will be born, he shall not consecrate,”

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

I would say

that this verse does not deal with the consecration of the firstborn, but deals with a human firstborn and not with an animal firstborn. And thus the verse said:

firstborn

of a human—

he shall not consecrate consecrations!

That is, the verse came to exclude a human firstborn, who shall not consecrate anything to the sanctuary.

The verse says:

“it.”

To teach us that the verse speaks of the consecration of an animal firstborn by a human firstborn. And thus the verse said: “Only the firstborn that will be born to the Lord” [and the firstborn mentioned here is both a human firstborn and an animal firstborn], “no man shall consecrate” who is a firstborn [that will be born to the Lord] it—the animal firstborn. And the tanna infers:

it

the animal firstborn

you may not consecrate;

the firstborn that will be born to the Lord may not consecrate “it,” the animal firstborn.

But a human may consecrate

who is

a firstborn

the

consecrations,

other consecrated things.

And the beraita continues:

And

if “among animals” had not been stated,

I would still say: he,

a human firstborn,

shall not consecrate

an animal firstborn.

But others may consecrate it,

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

The verse says:

“among animals,”

to say:

I dealt with animals.

The entire verse does not deal at all with a human firstborn, but only with an animal, and the Torah came to prohibit consecrating an animal firstborn with another sanctity; and this prohibition applies both to a human firstborn and to an ordinary person.

And the beraita continues:

One might have thought that he may not consecrate it

with another sanctity even while it is

in the womb,

in its mother’s womb?

The verse says:

“that will be born to the Lord.”

And we expound: only

from

the

time that it is born to the Lord,

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

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

And while it is in the womb of an unconsecrated animal, one may consecrate it with another sanctity.

And the beraita continues:

Could even the offspring of all the consecrated animals be so,

would it be permitted to change them to another sanctity while they are in the womb of their mothers?!

The verse says:

“Only the firstborn.”

And we expound:

“Only”—a division.

The verse divided between a firstborn and other consecrated animals: only concerning a firstborn did the Torah permit consecrating it with another sanctity in its mother’s womb, but not other consecrated animals, because a firstborn is formed in the womb of an unconsecrated animal, and its sanctity takes effect only from the time that it is born, when the womb “opens it,” as it is said [Exodus 13], “whatever opens the womb.” But as for other offspring of consecrated animals, whose mothers are consecrated, each and every portion that they form in the womb of their mothers is seized by the sanctity of the mother.

And the Gemara continues:

Apparently,

behold, this tanna

holds,

that

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

And he is the tanna who disputes our Mishna.

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

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

while it was in its mother’s womb:

“When the majority of it emerges, let it be

a burnt-offering!”

That is, he consecrated it now, with the intention that the consecration should take effect at the time that the majority of it emerges. And now two sanctities are about to take effect upon the offspring, firstborn and burnt-offering; which sanctity takes effect? And the question is which sanctity is more stringent, which precedes and takes effect before the other: whether

it is a burnt-offering, or it is a firstborn.

And the sides of the doubt are: whether

it is a burnt-offering,

since

it is a burnt-offering

entirely,

burned entirely to 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 by itself, when the firstborn emerges from its mother’s womb, without a need for its consecration.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Rav Amram:

What is your question?!

And is it

not

the same as Ilfa’s question?!

For a similar question was asked by Ilfa; this is what Ilfa was uncertain about:

One who harvests his field, and at the time of his harvesting

said concerning the gleanings,

which belong to the poor:

“When the majority of it falls”

[when the law of gleanings takes effect upon the ears of grain ],

“let it be ownerless,”

for the poor and for the wealthy! What law applies to these gleanings?

Whether

it is gleanings,

and the wealthy are forbidden to take it.

Or it is ownerless,

and the wealthy are permitted to take it, like other ownerless property?

And the sides of the doubt are: whether

it is gleanings, since their 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

to Ilfa?! Is it not certainly gleanings, since the Holy One, blessed be He, made it gleanings? And would the words of the harvester, who makes the gleanings ownerless for the poor and the wealthy, override the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, that the gleanings belong to the poor? Behold,

“the words of the master and the words of the disciple—the words of whom does one heed?!”

Thus Abaye resolved Ilfa’s question. And now Rav Sheshet says concerning Rav Amram’s question:

Here too

we must say: the words of the master, who consecrated it as a firstborn, and the words of the disciple, who consecrates it as a burnt-offering—

the words of whom does one heed?!

Behold, certainly one heeds the words of the master. Therefore, it is a firstborn and not a burnt-offering.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses one who consecrates a pregnant unconsecrated animal, in such a manner that he consecrates the mother to one sanctity and the fetus to another sanctity. In this manner there is no dispute at all whether “at their coming into being are they consecrated” or “in the womb of their mother are they consecrated,” because when one consecrates a pregnant animal, the fetus is considered an entity in its own right that receives the sanctity itself, and not by virtue of its mother.

One who says,

concerning a pregnant animal:

“The offspring of this one

shall be

a burnt-offering, and she

the mother, shall be

peace-offerings!”—

his words take effect.

And the offspring will be a burnt-offering and the mother peace-offerings, for 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 peace-offerings, and her offspring is a burnt-offering,”

it is the offspring of peace-offerings.

Since he consecrated the mother as peace-offerings, he consecrated the mother and everything within her, and the offspring is considered consecrated in its own right as peace-offerings, and it follows that he consecrated two animals as peace-offerings. And since the offspring became consecrated as peace-offerings, his statement “her offspring is a burnt-offering” is no longer effective to consecrate it as a burnt-offering, for it had already been consecrated as peace-offerings. These are

the words of Rabbi Meir,

who holds, “we seize the first expression.”

Rabbi Yose says:

If for this

to consecrate the offspring as a burnt-offering

he intended initially,

at the time that he consecrated the mother as peace-offerings,

since it is impossible to pronounce two designations at once,

for the mouth cannot say two things at once,

his words take effect.

And the offspring is a burnt-offering. For “even at the completion of his words, a person is apprehended,” and when he said “she is peace-offerings,” he did not intend to cause the sanctity of peace-offerings to take effect upon the offspring.

And if after he said

after he said

“This is peace-offerings,”

he reconsidered,

and said

“her offspring is a burnt-offering”—

it is the offspring of peace-offerings.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

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

if he wishes,

if he wishes to attain atonement

through it,

through the mother,

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

And its law is not that of a “sin-offering’s offspring” that goes to death. For only if he set aside an animal as a sin-offering and afterward it became pregnant and gave birth does the offspring go to death. But if he 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 consecration of his mouth, and not by virtue of the sanctity of the mother. And it is as though he had set aside two sin-offerings for responsibility, so that if one were lost he could attain atonement through the other; the law is that he attains atonement through whichever one he wishes, and the second grazes until it becomes blemished.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Rabbi Yohanan holds that one who consecrates a pregnant animal as a sin-offering:

if he left it over,

he left the fetus over from consecrating it, but left it to remain unconsecrated and did not consecrate it together with the mother,

it is left over,

and it is unconsecrated. That is, the fetus is an entity in its own right,

and

the fetus

is not the thigh of its mother,

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

and it is like one who sets aside two sin-offerings for responsibility,

so that if

he wishes, he attains atonement through it,

and if

he wishes, he attains atonement through its companion.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection

from what we learned: He said,

“She is peace-offerings and her offspring is a burnt-offering,”

it is the offspring of peace-offerings.

And if it enters your mind that

if he left it over, it is left over,

why did the Mishna say

“it is the offspring of peace-offerings”?

Is it not “the offspring of peace-offerings,” but rather it is peace-offerings in its own right? And if so,

“this is peace-offerings”

it should have been necessary for it to teach

it!

This is what the Mishna ought to have said!

And since the Mishna called it “the offspring of peace-offerings,” it is proven that its sanctity is by virtue of the mother and not because of the consecration of the consecrator’s mouth. And if so, regarding a sin-offering also, it is “a sin-offering’s offspring,” whose law is to die. And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan’s words?

And we answer:

Rav Tavla said: Except for that one

[apart from this Mishna], from which no difficulty can be raised against Rabbi Yohanan, because its wording is corrupt.

For

a tanna taught before Rav

he taught the Mishna before him in the wording

“this is the offspring of peace-offerings,”

and Rav corrected him

and Rav said to him: Teach

teach:

“this is peace-offerings.”

The objection was raised

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who says to his maidservant

at the time of giving her a bill of emancipation:

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

if she was pregnant,

she acquired it for him,

for the fetus its emancipation through receiving the bill, and the offspring went out to freedom.

If you say, granted, “

if he left it over, it is not left over”

and “

the fetus is its mother’s thigh”—

for this reason it acquired [freedom] for him,

because

it was for him like

if

he freed half of his slave.

And whose [opinion] is it,

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

Rabbi

it is,