Temurah 25a

אַמַּאי אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן? קָסָבַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁין, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִמְּעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁין — אַמַּאי אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן? הָא תְּפַסְתִּינְהוּ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּאִימַּיְיהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּה: וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.

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.

וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים מִמְּעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכוֹר לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״ הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר בְּכוֹר לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אוֹתוֹ״ — אוֹתוֹ אִי אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁ, אֲבָל מַקְדִּישׁ אָדָם בְּכוֹר הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת.

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.

וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: הוּא לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ, אֲבָל יַקְדִּישׁוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בִּבְהֵמָה״ — בִּבְהֵמָה עָסַקְתִּי.

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.

יָכוֹל לֹא יַקְדִּישֶׁנּוּ בַּבֶּטֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יְבֻכַּר לַה׳״ — מִשֶּׁיְּבוּכַּר לַה׳ אִי אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁ, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁ בַּבֶּטֶן.

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.

יָכוֹל אַף וַלְדֵי כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים כֵּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ״ — חָלַק, אַלְמָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים מִמְּעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁין.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמַר עַל הַבְּכוֹר ״עִם יְצִיאַת רוּבּוֹ — עוֹלָה״, עוֹלָה הָוֵי אוֹ בְּכוֹר הָוֵי?

§ 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?

עוֹלָה הָוֵי, דְּכׇל פּוּרְתָּא וּפוּרְתָּא דְּקָא נָפֵיק הָוֵי כָּלִיל, אוֹ בְּכוֹר הָוֵי, דְּכׇל פּוּרְתָּא וּפוּרְתָּא דְּקָא נָפֵיק בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא?

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.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא: שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁה חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּכוֹר הָוֵי — שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ? הַיְינוּ דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא: אָמַר עַל הַלֶּקֶט ״עִם נְשִׁירַת רוּבּוֹ — יְהֵא הֶפְקֵר״, לֶקֶט הָוֵי אוֹ הֶפְקֵר הָוֵי?

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?

לֶקֶט הָוֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, אוֹ דִלְמָא הֶפְקֵר הָוֵי, שֶׁכֵּן זוֹכִין בּוֹ עֲנִיִּים וַעֲשִׁירִים?

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.

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? דִּבְרֵי הָרַב וְדִבְרֵי תַּלְמִיד — דִּבְרֵי מִי שׁוֹמְעִים? הָכִי נָמֵי: דִּבְרֵי מִי שׁוֹמְעִים?

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.

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״וְלָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה, וְהִיא שְׁלָמִים״ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִים. ״הִיא שְׁלָמִים, וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה״ — הֲרֵי זֶה וְלַד זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכֵן נִתְכַּוֵּין תְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁלָמִים״ נִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר ״וְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה — רָצָה בָּהּ מִתְכַּפֵּר, רָצָה בִּוְלָדָהּ מִתְכַּפֵּר.

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.

מַאי טַעְמָא? קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ — מְשׁוּיָּיר.

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.

עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת — רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ, רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.

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.

מוֹתֵיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״הִיא שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה״ — הֲרֵי זֶה וְלַד שְׁלָמִים, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שִׁיְּירוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, ״הֲרֵי זֶה וְלַד שְׁלָמִים״ — ״הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁלָמִים״ בָּעֵי מִיתְנָא!

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.

אָמַר רַב טַבְלָא: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא, הָא אָמַר רַב לְתַנָּא: תְּנִי ״הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁלָמִים״.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹמֵר לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ ״הֲרֵי אֶת שִׁפְחָה, וּוְלָדֵךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין״, אִם הָיְתָה עוּבָּרָה — זָכְתָה לוֹ.

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.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי זָכְתָה לוֹ, וְהָוֵי לֵיהּ כִּמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, כִּדְתַנְיָא:

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 :