Temurah 25aתמורה כ״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Temurah 25a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
25aכ״ה א

אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן קסבר רשב"ג ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושין דאי ס"ד ממעי אמן הן קדושין אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן הא תפסתינהו קדושה דאימייהו אלא ש"מ ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים

The Gemara asks: Why aren’t they imbued with the sanctity of the mother? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are imbued with sanctity only as they come into being, i.e., from the moment they are born. As, if it enters your mind that they are sanctified already in the womb of their mother, why are they not imbued with the sanctity of the mother? After all, the sanctity of their mother has taken hold of them. Rather, learn from it that the offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified only as they come into being.

והאי תנא סבר ולדי קדשים ממעי אמן הן קדושים דת"ר אילו (לא) נאמר בכור לא יקדיש הייתי אומר בכור לא יקדיש הקדישות ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כו) איש אותו אותו אי אתה מקדיש אבל מקדיש אדם בכור הקדישות

And this tanna disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified in the womb of their mother. As the Sages taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to a firstborn: “But the firstborn among animals, which is born as a firstling to the Lord, man shall not consecrate it” (Leviticus 27:26). If that verse were not complete but merely stated: The firstborn shall not consecrate, I would have said that the verse is teaching that a firstborn man shall not consecrate non-sacred items. Therefore, the verse states: “Man shall not consecrate it,” i.e., you may not consecrate it, a firstborn animal, but a firstborn man may consecrate non-sacred items.

ועדיין אני אומר הוא לא יקדיש אבל יקדישוהו אחרים ת"ל בבהמה בבהמה עסקתי

But still, I would say that specifically a firstborn man may not consecrate a firstborn animal with a different sanctity, but others who are not firstborns may consecrate a firstborn animal. Therefore, the verse states: “Among animals,” indicating that I am dealing with firstborn animals, not firstborn men, i.e., the verse is teaching that all people are prohibited to consecrate a firstborn animal with a different sanctity that that of a firstborn.

יכול לא יקדישנו בבטן ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כו) אשר יבוכר לה' משיבוכר לה' אי אתה מקדיש אבל אתה מקדיש בבטן

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one also cannot consecrate the fetus of an animal pregnant with its firstborn while the fetus is still in the womb of its mother. Therefore, the verse states: “Which is born as a firstling to the Lord,” indicating that from the time the animal is born and consecrated to the Lord as a firstborn you cannot consecrate it with a different sanctity, but you may consecrate it with a different sanctity while it is still in the womb.

יכול אף ולדי כל הקדשים כן ת"ל אך חלק אלמא ס"ל ולדי קדשים ממעי אמן הן קדושין

One might have thought that even with regard to the offspring of all other consecrated animals it is so, that one may consecrate them with a different sanctity when they are still in the womb. Therefore, the verse states: “But [akh],” which distinguished between a firstborn animal, which one may consecrate with a different sanctity while it is still in the womb, and the offspring of other consecrated animals, which one may not consecrate with a different sanctity even when they are in the womb. Evidently, this tanna holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified in the womb of their mother.

א"ל רב עמרם לרב ששת אמר על הבכור עם יציאת רובו עולה עולה הוי או בכור הוי

§ The mishna teaches that one may employ artifice to circumvent the obligation to give the firstborn to the priest by consecrating the fetus as a burnt offering before the time of birth, which is the point at which the animal becomes sanctified as a firstborn. Rav Amram said to Rav Sheshet: If an owner said with regard to the fetus of an animal pregnant with its firstborn: This fetus will be consecrated as a burnt offering at the same time that the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect, which is when the majority of the animal leaves the womb, what is the status of the offspring? Is the offspring a burnt offering or is it a firstborn?

עולה הוי דכל פורתא ופורתא דקא נפיק הוא כליל או בכור הוי דכל פורתא ופורתא דקא נפיק במילתיה הוא

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is it a burnt offering, as the sanctity of a burnt offering is more stringent than the sanctity of a firstborn and therefore each and every bit that exits the womb becomes a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar? Or perhaps it is a firstborn, because normally the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect at the moment of birth, and therefore with regard to each and every bit of the animal that exits the womb, its status is that of a firstborn.

ל"א שכן קדושה חיילא עליה או דלמא בכור הוי שכן קדושתו מרחם

The Gemara cites another version of the explanation of the dilemma: Is it a burnt offering because it is imbued with the more stringent sanctity of a burnt offering? Or perhaps it is a firstborn because God declared its sanctity as a firstborn upon exiting from the womb.

א"ל מאי תיבעי לך היינו דבעי אילפא אמר על הלקט עם נשירת רובו יהא הפקר לקט הוי או הפקר הוי

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Amram: What is your dilemma? Your dilemma is the same as that dilemma which Ilfa raised: With regard to the gleanings left for the poor, which the wealthy may not take, if the owner of a field at the harvest time said: This grain that is now on the stalk will become ownerless property, meaning that even the wealthy can acquire it, at precisely the same time as the halakha of gleanings left for the poor takes effect, which is when the majority of the grain falls off the stalk, what is the status of the grain after it falls off the stalk? Is it gleanings left for the poor or is it ownerless property that even the wealthy may take?

לקט הוי שכן קדושתו בידי שמים או דלמא הפקר הוי שכן זוכין בו עניים ועשירים

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is it gleanings, as its sanctity is dictated by the hand of Heaven at the moment that the grain falls off the stalk? Or perhaps it is ownerless property, because that status is more inclusive, as both the poor and the wealthy may acquire the grain.

ואמר אביי מאי תיבעי ליה דברי הרב ודברי תלמיד דברי מי שומעים ה"נ דברי מי שומעים

And Abaye said in response to Ilfa’s dilemma: What is your dilemma? When there is a conflict between the statement of the Master, i.e., God, who commanded that the grain become gleanings for the poor, and the statement of the student, the one who declared the grain to be ownerless property that may be acquired even by the wealthy, to whose statement should one listen? So too, with regard to Rav Amram’s dilemma, when there is a conflict between the statement of God and the statement of the student, to whose statement should one listen? Accordingly, the fetus is consecrated with the sanctity of a firstborn, not that of a burnt offering.

מתני׳ האומר ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים דבריו קיימים היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד זבחי שלמים דברי ר"מ

MISHNA: One who says: The offspring of this non-sacred animal is a burnt offering and the animal itself is a peace offering, his statement stands, i.e., is effective. If he says: The animal itself is a peace offering and its offspring is a burnt offering, then since consecration of the mother preceded consecration of the offspring, it is the offspring of a peace offering, whose halakhic status is that of a peace offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

א"ר יוסי אם לכן נתכוין תחלה הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות שני שמות כאחת דבריו קיימין ואם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה הרי זו ולדה שלמים

Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, to designate the offspring as a burnt offering when he designated the mother as a peace offering, then since it is impossible to call it by two designations simultaneously, his statement stands, and the mother is a peace offering and the offspring a burnt offering. And if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby a peace offering, that he reconsidered and said: Its offspring is a burnt offering, that offspring is a peace offering, as before he reconsidered, the offspring had already assumed the status of the offspring of a peace offering.

גמ׳ א"ר יוחנן הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה בה מתכפר רצה בולדה מתכפר

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one who separated a pregnant animal as a sin offering and that animal later gave birth to a female, both animals are consecrated as sin offerings. If he wishes he may achieve atonement by sacrificing the mother itself, and if he wishes he may achieve atonement by sacrificing the offspring. Since he consecrated the animal when it was already pregnant, his act of consecration took effect with regard to both the mother and the offspring.

מ"ט קסבר ר' יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר

What is the reason for this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that in the case of one who consecrated a pregnant animal, if he reserved the fetus and designated it as non-sacred, e.g., he said: The fetus is non-sacred and the animal itself is designated as a sin offering, then the offspring is considered reserved and is non-sacred, despite the fact that the mother is consecrated.

עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא דהוה ליה כמפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות רצה מתכפר בה רצה מתכפר בחבירתה

The reason is that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that a fetus is not considered the thigh, i.e., a part, of its mother. Therefore, just as one can reserve the fetus from being consecrated with its mother, so too, one can consecrate the fetus with a separate sanctity than that of the mother. Consequently, this case is like that of one who separates two sin offerings as a guarantee; if he wishes he may gain atonement with one of them, and if he wishes he may gain atonement with the other.

מותיב רבי אלעזר היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד שלמים ואי סלקא דעתך שיירו משוייר הרי זה ולד שלמים הרי זו שלמים בעי מיתנא

Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from the mishna: If one says: The animal itself is a peace offering and its offspring is a burnt offering, then it is the offspring of a peace offering. And if it enters your mind that if one reserved the fetus from the consecration of the mother it is considered reserved, and its sanctity is independent from that of the mother, why does the mishna state with regard to the offspring that it is the offspring of a peace offering, which indicates that it receives its sanctity from that of the mother? The mishna should teach that the offspring is a peace offering with an independent sanctity.

אמר רב טבלא בר מינה דההיא הא אמר רב לתנא תני הרי זו שלמים

Rav Tavla said: The discussion of this topic should be held apart from this version of the mishna, as it is incorrect. Didn’t Rav say to the tanna who was reciting mishnayot that he should not recite the mishna with the phrase: It is the offspring of a peace offering, but rather, he should teach: It is a peace offering.

מיתיבי האומר לשפחתו הרי את שפחה וולדך בן חורין אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו

The Gemara raises another objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita: One who says to his Canaanite maidservant: You are hereby still a maidservant but your unborn child is a freeman, and he writes a bill of manumission for the child and places it in her hand, if she was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child.

אי אמרת בשלמא אם שיירו אינו משוייר עובר ירך אמו מש"ה זכתה לו והוי ליה כמשחרר חצי עבדו ומני ר' מאיר היא כדתניא

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say that if one reserved a certain consecration it is not considered reserved, and therefore the sanctity of the mother takes effect on her offspring, and likewise that a fetus is considered the thigh of its mother, it is due to that reason that she acquired freedom for the unborn child. And the explanation is that this case is like that of one who emancipates half of his slave, as that half is thereby emancipated. And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: