הכי קאמר מקדישין איברין וממירין בהן אבל לא ממירין [אברים] בהן ועוברים שקדשו במעי אמן אין ממירין בהן Rabbi Zeira answered that this is what the mishna is saying: One consecrates certain animal’s limbs, and the sanctity extends to the entire animal. And therefore, one substitutes these animals despite the fact that he initially consecrated only the limbs. But one does not substitute the limbs alone of non-sacred animals for consecrated animals or their limbs, since sanctity cannot be transferred to a limb through substitution. And as for fetuses that were consecrated in their mother’s womb through consecration of the mother, one does not substitute for them as long as they are in their mother’s womb. In other words, the clause of this mishna that refers to consecration is not referring to fetuses at all.
בולדי קדשים במעי אמן הוא דלא עבדין תמורה הא אבראי עבדי והא תנן אין הוולדות עושין תמורה הא מני רבי יהודה היא Rabbi Yirmeya objected: If the mishna is referring to the offspring of sacrificial animals, and it is teaching that it is only when they are in their mother’s womb that one may not render a substitute for them, one can infer that once they are outside their mother’s womb, one can render a substitute for them. But didn’t we learn in the next mishna that the offspring born of a consecrated animal do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute? Rabbi Zeira answered: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees and maintains that one can substitute for the offspring.
אי רבי יהודה אברין מי קדשי הא לר' יהודה לית ליה האומר רגלה של זו עולה כולה עולה Rabbi Yirmeya objected: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one encounters a difficulty. According to Rabbi Yehuda, are limbs consecrated in this manner, in that the sanctity extends to the whole animal? But Rabbi Yehuda does not accept that if one says: The hind leg of this animal is a burnt offering, the entire animal is a burnt offering.
אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן בדבר העושה אותה טרפה Rabbi Zeira said to him: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an item whose removal renders it a tereifa, i.e., will cause it to die within twelve months. Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that the consecration of a limb does not extend to the entire animal applies only to limbs whose removal would not render the animal a tereifa. He concedes that the consecration of limbs which would render an animal tereifa were they removed does extend to the whole animal. In sum, bar Padda’s opinion that fetuses cannot be consecrated has not been refuted.
לימא כתנאי השוחט את החטאת ומצא בה בן ארבע חי קתני חדא אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה ואינה נאכלת אלא לפנים מן הקלעים ואינה נאכלת אלא ליום אחד § The Gemara suggests. Let us say that the dispute between bar Padda and Rabbi Yoḥanan is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned: If one slaughtered a pregnant animal that was consecrated as a sin offering, and he found inside it a female fetus four months old, which is alive, despite the fact that the mother usually carries its young for five months, one baraita teaches: This animal is treated as a sin offering, and therefore it is eaten only by the males of the priesthood, and it is eaten only within the hangings, i.e., within the Temple courtyard, and it is eaten only for one day and night.
ותניא אידך נאכלת לכל אדם ונאכלין בכל מקום ואינן נאכלין בעזרה מאי לאו תנאי היא דמר סבר קדושה חלה על עוברין ומר סבר אין קדושה חלה על עוברין And it is taught in another baraita that it is treated as a non-sacred animal, which means it is eaten by any person, not only priests, and such animals may be eaten anywhere outside the Temple courtyard, but they may not be eaten in the Temple courtyard. What, is it not correct that the dispute between bar Padda and Rabbi Yoḥanan is a dispute between tanna’im, as one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that fetuses are imbued with sanctity, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that fetuses are not imbued with sanctity, as maintained by bar Padda?
לא הני תנאי בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים ומר סבר ולדי קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים The Gemara responds: No, the tanna’im of both baraitot agree that sanctity can apply to fetuses if the animal was consecrated while pregnant. Rather, the baraitot are dealing with an animal that was consecrated and then became pregnant, and these tanna’im disagree about this, as one Sage, in the second baraita, holds that with regard to the offspring of sacrificial animals, only when they come into being, at the time of their birth, are they sanctified. Since this fetus was never born, it is not sacred. And one Sage, in the first baraita, holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified already in their mother’s womb, and therefore all the halakhot of a sin offering apply to the fetus immediately.
ואיבעית אימא חד תנא הוא חדא מהלין מתנייתא במקדיש בהמה ואח"כ נתעבדה וחדא מנהון שהקדישה מעוברת And if you wish, say instead that there is no contradiction between these two baraitot at all, and it is one tanna who taught both of them, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that fetuses are imbued with sanctity. And the second one of these baraitot is referring to a case where one consecrates an animal as a sin offering and it became pregnant only afterward. Since the fetus did not exist at the moment of consecration, it is not sacred. And the first one of the baraitot is referring to a case where he consecrated the animal when it was already pregnant, and therefore its fetus is imbued with its sanctity.
תניא רבי אליעזר אומר כלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין [לעשות] תמורה § It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and an animal whose sexual organs are indeterminate [tumtum], and an animal that is a hermaphrodite [ve’androginos] are neither sacred nor do they sanctify another animal. And Shmuel says, in explanation of the baraita: These animals are not sacred as a substitute, i.e., if one of these was non-sacred it cannot be consecrated as a substitute for a sacred animal. And they do not sanctify another animal to render it a substitute; that is, if one of these animals was sacred, no non-sacred animal can be consecrated as a substitute for them.
ותניא א"ר מאיר מאחר שאינן קדושין היאך מקדישין אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואחר כך נטרפה במקדיש ולד ויצא [דרך] דופן אלמא קדיש ולד And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Why is it necessary for Rabbi Eliezer to state that one cannot substitute for these animals? After all, since he has already said that they are not sanctified, how could they sanctify another animal exchanged for them? Rabbi Meir himself responded: You find that these animals can be sacred, but only in specific situations, for example, where one consecrated an animal and subsequently it became a tereifa, or where one consecrated an animal’s offspring and it was then born by caesarean section. One can infer from Rabbi Meir’s statement that evidently an offspring can be sanctified while in the womb, contrary to the opinion of bar Padda.
אמרי בתם במעי תמימה אפילו בר פדא נמי מודי דקדיש לא נחלקו אלא בתם במעי בעלת מום בר פדא סבר כיון דאימיה לא מקדישין קדושת הגוף הוא נמי לא קדיש ורבי יוחנן סבר הני כב' בהמות נינהו אימיה היא דלא מיקדשא אבל הוא קדוש The Sages say in response: In the case of an unblemished animal in the womb of an unblemished mother, even bar Padda concedes that it can be consecrated. Bar Padda and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree only with regard to an unblemished animal in the womb of a blemished mother. Bar Padda maintains that since its mother cannot be consecrated with inherent sanctity, its offspring is not consecrated either. And Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains: These are considered as two separate animals; it is its mother alone that is not consecrated, but the fetus itself is consecrated.
לישנא אחרינא אבל כלאים וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס אי אתה מוצא אלא בולדי קדשים The Gemara cites another version of the above discussion, which cites the continuation of Rabbi Meir’s statement: But with regard to an animal born of diverse kinds, and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, you find that they can be consecrated only when they are offspring of sacrificial animals, i.e., a consecrated animal impregnated by an animal of a different species, or whose fetus was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.
וכרבי יהודה שהיה אומר הולד עושה תמורה הלין הוא דלא קדשי גופייהו אבל עוברין אחרים קדושין Rabbi Meir adds: And Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who would say that the offspring of a consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. These offspring are exceptions, as they are disqualified for the altar. The Gemara infers: It is only for these disqualified offspring that one cannot substitute, as they cannot have inherent sanctity, but other offspring that are fit for the altar, and likewise other fetuses, can be consecrated, contrary to the opinion of bar Padda.
אמר אביי תם במעי תמימה דברי הכל קדיש גופיה אלא כי פליגי במעי בעלת מום דבר פדא סבר כיון דאימיה נמי לא קדיש גופה איהו נמי לא קדיש אלא לדמי רבי יוחנן סבר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא ואע"ג דאימיה לא קדשה לגופה ולד מיהא קדיש לגופיה Abaye said: In the case of an unblemished animal in the womb of an unblemished mother, everyone agrees that the fetus can have inherent sanctity. Rather, when bar Padda and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is with regard to an unblemished animal in the womb of a blemished mother. As bar Padda maintains: Since even its mother cannot have inherent sanctity, the offspring too can be consecrated only for its value. And Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains: A fetus is considered not the thigh of its mother but a separate entity, and therefore even though its mother’s sanctity is not inherent, the sanctity of its offspring can still be inherent.
א"ר יוסי והלא במוקדשין האומר רגלה של זו כו' § The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis, one cannot substitute non-sacred limbs for whole consecrated animals, but Rabbi Yosei said that one can substitute in this manner. He claims: But isn’t it so with regard to sacrificial animals, that if one says: The hind leg of this animal is a burnt offering, the entire animal is a burnt offering? The same should apply to substitution.