ולד טרפה כו' למ"ד טרפה (אינה) ילדה משכחת לה כגון שנטרפה ולבסוף עיברה § The mishna teaches that with regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits it to be sacrificed on the altar, whereas the Rabbis permit it. The Gemara explains: There is a dispute as to whether a tereifa is capable of giving birth. According to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, you find this dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis in a case where the animal first became a tereifa and then became pregnant.
ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר זה וזה גורם אסור ורבנן סברי זה וזה גורם מותר The Gemara elaborates: And this is the matter over which they disagree, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a certain situation, the resulting item is prohibited. Here too, as the mother of this offspring is prohibited, the offspring is likewise prohibited, despite the fact that its father is permitted. And the Rabbis hold that when both this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a situation, the resulting item is permitted. Therefore, the offspring in this case is permitted like its father.
למ"ד טריפה אינה חיה משכחת לה כגון שעיברה ולבסוף נטרפה ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ורבנן סברי עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא By contrast, according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot survive, i.e., cannot give birth, you find this dispute in a case where the animal first became pregnant and then became a tereifa. And this is the point over which they disagree, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered the thigh of its mother, and therefore just as its mother is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar as a tereifa, the same applies to its offspring. And the Rabbis hold that a fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother, and consequently there is no reason to prohibit it to be sacrificed on the altar.
א"ר הונא מודים חכמים לר' אליעזר באפרוח ביצת טרפה שאסור מ"ט ע"כ לא פליגי עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בולד בהמה דמאוירא קא רביא אבל ביצת טרפה מגופה דתרנגולתא קא רביא אפי' רבנן מודו § The Gemara continues to discuss the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Rav Huna says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of a chick that emerges from the egg of a tereifa dove that it is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. What is the reason that the Rabbis rule stringently here? The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and claim that the offspring of a tereifa is permitted only with regard to the offspring of an animal, which grows from its own space, i.e., even when it is in its mother’s womb it develops as an independent entity. But with regard to an egg of a tereifa hen, which grows from the body of the hen, even the Rabbis concede that the chick which emerges from this egg may not be sacrificed on the altar.
א"ל רבא לרב הונא תניא דמסייע לך מלא תרוד רימה הבאה מאדם חי רבי אליעזר מטמא וחכמים מטהרין עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא ברימה דפירשא בעלמא הוא אבל ביצה דמגופה דתרנגולת הוא אפילו רבנן מודו Rava said to Rav Huna: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: With regard to a full ladle [tarvad] of worms that come from a living person who subsequently died, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it transmits ritual impurity in the same manner as a corpse, as a full ladle is the minimum amount of dust from the dead that imparts impurity; and the Rabbis deem it pure. Rava analyzes this baraita: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to worms, which are merely a secretion. But with regard to an egg, which is part of the hen’s body, even the Rabbis concede that in the case of a tereifa, the chick that emerges from the egg is prohibited to the altar.
א"ל אביי אדרבה איפכא מסתברא ע"כ לא פליג ר' אליעזר עלייהו דרבנן אלא ברימה דאיקרי אדם מחיים רימה דכתיב (איוב כה, ו) ותקות אנוש רמה ובן אדם תולעה Abaye said to Rava: No proof can be brought from here for the opinion of Rav Huna, as on the contrary, the opposite is reasonable: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to worms, as he maintains that worms are considered part of a person even if they emerged from him while he was still alive, as a person is called a worm while he is still alive, as it is written: And the hope of man is a worm, and the son of man, that is a maggot (see Job 25:6).
אבל גבי ביצה [אימת גדלה לכי מסרחא וכי אסרחא עפרא בעלמא הוא] אפי' ר"א מודה ועוד תניא בהדיא מודה ר"א לחכמים באפרוח ביצת טרפה שמותר א"ל אי תניא תניא But with regard to a chick that emerges from an egg, one can say: When does the chick grow out of and emerge from the egg? It does so when the egg rots, and when it rots it is considered merely dust and is no longer attributed to the hen that laid it. Therefore, despite the fact that the hen is a tereifa, even Rabbi Eliezer should concede that the chick that emerges from its egg is permitted to be sacrificed. And furthermore, it is explicitly taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis with regard to the chick that emerged from the egg of a tereifa animal that it is permitted to be sacrificed on the altar, which is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. Rava said to Abaye: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.
רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כשרה כו' מ"ט אילימא דמפטמא מינה אלא מעתה האכילה כרשיני ע"ז ה"נ דאסירא § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa is disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because the kosher animal was fattened from the tereifa animal, if that is so, then in a case where its owner fed it vetches of idolatry, so too, should one say that it is prohibited? Feeding an animal vetches of idolatry renders it prohibited only if the animal has been set aside for idolatry; a regular animal is not prohibited by this action.
אלא תני ר' חנינא טריטאה קמיה דרבי יוחנן כגון שהניקה חלב רותח משחרית לשחרית הואיל ויכולה לעמוד עליה מעת לעת Rather, Rabbi Ḥanina Terita taught the meaning of the mishna before Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is referring to a case where one gave the kosher animal to suckle from the tereifa warm, i.e., fresh, milk every morning. Since the kosher animal can maintain its existence based upon this suckling for a twenty-four-hour period, until the next suckling, it survives only due to the tereifa animal. Consequently, the kosher animal is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar.
כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין כו' מנא ה"מ דת"ר (דברים יב, טו) תזבח ולא גיזה ואכלת ולא לכלביך בשר ולא חלב מכאן שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים § The mishna further teaches: With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifa, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, as their consumption is prohibited, and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “Notwithstanding you may slaughter and eat flesh within all your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:15). This verse, which is referring to disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed, is expounded as follows: “You may slaughter,” but you may not shear their wool; “and eat,” but you may not give to your dogs to eat; “and eat flesh,” but not their milk. From here it is derived that one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs.
איכא דאמרי תזבח ואכלת אין לך בהן היתר אלא משעת זביחה ואילך קסבר פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים There are those who state a different version: “You may slaughter and eat,” this teaches that you have permission to derive benefit from them only from the time of slaughter and onward, i.e., those benefits that come after slaughter, such as the consumption of its flesh, are permitted. But one may not derive benefit from their shearing or their milk, as these occur even when the animal is alive. It can be inferred from here that the tanna of this baraita maintains that one may redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs, as this occurs after the slaughter.
הדרן עלך כל האסורין
מתני׳ יש בקדשי מזבח שאין בקדשי בדק הבית ויש בקדשי בדק הבית שאין בקדשי מזבח MISHNA: There are elements that apply to animals consecrated for the altar that do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there are elements that apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar.
שקדשי מזבח עושין תמורה וקדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה קדשי מזבח חייבין עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא One element exclusive to animals consecrated for the altar is that animals consecrated for the altar render an animal exchanged for them a substitute, and items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render an animal exchanged for them a substitute. In addition, if one slaughters an animal consecrated for the altar with the intention to eat it beyond its designated time, or if he ate the offering after its designated time, or if he ate the offering while ritually impure, he is liable to receive karet for eating it due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and eating while ritually impure, respectively.