010b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה י ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

[This refers to] the fetus itself. But here, where he consecrated its mother, the fetus is included within her and is not consecrated. Had we learned only the latter case, one might think that there he consecrated the mother and everything in her; but here, where he consecrated the fetus itself, since it is not yet outside, it is not consecrated.

לעוברה גופיה - Another explanation: What does R' Yochanan teach with "if one designates [the fetus], it is designated, since a fetus is not a limb of its mother"? Because R' Yochanan regards it as a separate creature, and not like the offspring of a sin offering (chatas)^[1], which goes to die. From this we learn: had one wished to designate the fetus for a different sanctity, for example, "this one shall be a sin offering and its fetus an olah", his words stand, since a fetus is not a limb of its mother. Or if he designated it, saying "it is a sin offering and its offspring is unconsecrated", that is valid; but Bar Pada does not regard a fetus as a separate creature. Where he consecrated the mother and designated the offspring for another sanctity, it is not consecrated, and it becomes the offspring of a sin offering that goes to die. If he said its offspring is unconsecrated, he has said nothing. According to the one who says offspring of consecrated animals are consecrated in the womb, it is consecrated at once; according to the one who says they are consecrated in their being, it is consecrated when it is born.

It is necessary to use a different formulation.

What does this teach us? That if one designates [the fetus], it is designated, since a fetus is not a limb of its mother.

And why do I need both?

ותרתי למה לי כו' - We already learned from the first case that he holds that holiness takes effect on fetuses; from this it follows that the offspring is considered a beast in its own right.

Both are needed. Had it been stated only in this case, because the mother is fit to be consecrated as a body, and holiness that takes effect on her takes effect on the offspring too, the other case would not teach this.

חזי לגופיה - That the mother's sanctity is bodily sanctity, to be brought as an offering.

And had it been stated only in this case, one might say it is because he specified holiness for the offspring; but then that other case would be unnecessary.

R' Zeira sat and stated this law.

R' Yirmeyah raised an objection to R' Zeira: How does one trick the firstborn^[2]? [A case of] a first-bearing female that was pregnant, who says: What is in the womb of this one is an olah; if it bears a male, behold this one is an olah^[3]. It follows that a fetus is consecrated.

כיצד מערימין על הבכור - To remove it from the Kohen, and to benefit from it oneself.

ילדה זכר הרי הוא עולה - And he offers it for his obligation and is discharged, if he was obligated to an olah, because the sanctity of the olah took effect first. As for the firstborn: it is not sanctified until the womb sanctifies it, and no further; the firstborn sanctity comes and is removed by the sanctity of the olah. So the fetus is consecrated; and this is difficult for Bar Pada.

He said to him: That case speaks of consecration of value^[4]. Is consecration of value strong enough to remove it from firstborn status?

קדושת דמים - That he sells it and brings an olah from its price; but the animal itself does not take bodily sanctity; rather it is sold without blemish.

He said to him: Yes. And we learned: All consecrated animals that had a permanent blemish before they were consecrated, once redeemed, are liable for firstborn status and for matnos^[5]; the reason is that after they are redeemed they are liable, but before they are redeemed they are exempt.

והתנן - Casually (bnichuta), i.e., as a passing reference.

חייבין בבכורה - If they are females, and after their redemption they were the first to give birth (bichru).

[It follows that] consecration of value is strong, since it removes it from firstborn status.

[אלמא] דאלימא קדושת דמים - Because the permanent blemish preceded the consecration, it was not consecrated originally, but only for its value.

He raised an objection: [A Mishnah says:] One who says, What is in the womb of this one is an olah; she is permitted to be shorn^[6] and forbidden to work, because of the fetus that is thinned inside her.

מותרת האם בגיזה - Because its body was not consecrated.

כחוש עובר - Because the mother's labour thins the fetus; it follows that the fetus is consecrated.

He said to him: This too is a case of consecration of value. And is consecration of value strong enough that it forbids her to be worked?

He said to him: Yes, and we learned: They go out to chullin^[7], to be shorn and worked; the reason is that they were redeemed.

והתנן - Casually (bnichuta).

יוצאין לחולין - The end of the Mishnah you cited above, "all consecrated animals that...", and at its end it teaches: "they go out to chullin when redeemed, to be shorn and worked", that after their redemption they are permitted for shearing and work, since the permanent blemish preceded the consecration, so the bodily sanctity did not take hold. See Bechoros, chapter two (14a).

Before they were redeemed they are forbidden to be worked.

It follows that consecration of value forbids [the animal] to be worked.

He raised an objection: [A Mishnah says:] One may not substitute^[8] limbs for fetuses, nor fetuses for limbs.

איתיביה - R' Yirmeyah [raised the objection] to R' Zeira.

אין ממירין כו' - It is a Mishnah, and it teaches that one does not [use] whole [animals] in it.

[This means:] it is only the emurim (the fatty portions burned on the altar) that one may not substitute.

אמורי הוא דלא מימר - Because in temurah it is written "beast for beast", and a fetus is not a beast.

[Otherwise, if they were not consecrated, the implication is that] the fetuses are consecrated.

הא מיקדש קדשי - Fetuses: for if they were not consecrated, it would be obvious that one may not substitute whole non-sacred animals for them.

He said to him: It is only the offspring of consecrated animals^[9] that are consecrated and remain as they are.

If [it is about] an offspring in the womb of a consecrated mother, it is that one may not [substitute it]; but outside the womb one may.

But we learned in a beraisa: The offspring does not make a temurah^[10].

והתנן אין הולד עושה תמורה - Rather, certainly we are dealing with one who consecrates the offspring, which counts as a first consecration.

Whose view is it? It is R' Yehudah's^[11], who says that the offspring does make a temurah.

רבי יהודה היא - In the Mishnah R' Yehudah says that the offspring does make a temurah.

If it is R' Yehudah, [the Mishnah means] that they do not make a temurah; but they do consecrate [the offspring].

אי ר' יהודה - How can the first part be explained, which teaches "one may not substitute limbs of chullin for whole consecrated animals"? It implies that temurah does not apply to limbs; the first Tanna holds that at the start of consecration, if one consecrated one limb, holiness spreads to the whole; and R' Shimon, the partner of R' Yossi, says that at the start of consecration the whole is an olah. And the Mishnah teaches about temurah that it does not spread, either because it expounds "beast for beast" or because it compares temurah to maaser at the end of the chapter (13a), "just as maaser is an individual's sacrifice"; from that very comparison one derives that just as maaser does not apply to limbs, so temurah does not apply to limbs. And so we say in Chullin (69b).

Surely R' Yehudah said^[12]: limbs are not consecrated.

האמר רבי יהודה - Below, in the beraisa, R' Yehudah holds that holiness does not spread over the whole animal.

Here, what are we dealing with? [With] a limb on which life depends^[13].

הכא במאי עסקינן - For we infer: without temurah, the whole animal was consecrated through one limb.

כגון שהקדיש אבר שהנשמה תלוייה בו - As it says below: R' Yehudah concedes in a matter that makes the animal a terefah, e.g., if he consecrated its legs from the arkuvah^[14] upward, the whole is an olah; but in temurah we do not expound "beast for beast".

He raised an objection: [A beraisa says:] One may consecrate limbs and fetuses^[15], but may not exchange them.

מקדישין אברין ועוברין - Below, in chapter two (16a), consecrations are stricter than temurah; [the Gemara] counts the stringencies and teaches: "one may consecrate limbs and fetuses, but not substitute them".

Here too, [it is about] the offspring of consecrated animals.

If [it is about] the offspring of consecrated animals, what is the point of consecrating? They are already consecrated and remain as they are.

תוספות

אבל הכא דאקדשיה לאימיה הוא בכלל אימיה - And it is difficult: why do we need this case? Let it be stated together with the first. For had we learned only the first, one would think that a set-aside [fetus] is not set aside, so it was necessary to say that if he wished its offspring to be for atonement, it is set aside; this teaches that a set-aside [fetus] is set aside, as he explained. Further difficulty: how can one say that it is included in its mother and not consecrated, when we learned explicitly (in chapter Kizad Maarimin, Temurah 25a): "it is a shelamim and its offspring is an olah; this one is the offspring of a shelamim", which proves that it is consecrated as included in its mother? One can answer: its meaning is that it is included in its mother and is not consecrated by the man's designation, but by the mother's womb, since the fetus is a limb of its mother; and if he did not set it aside, it is not set aside. Therefore it was necessary in the latter case to teach that the offspring is consecrated by the man's designation and not by its mother's womb.

כי תניא ההיא קדושת דמים - And it is difficult: if so, what does the Mishnah of Kizad Maarimin (below, Temurah 24b) mean at its end: "if she bore two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah"? Since it has only value-sanctity, why should it be offered as an olah? And if you say it is sold for the needs of the olah, the Mishnah there teaches: "and the second shall be sold for the needs of the olah"; so what is the difference between the first and the second? One must say: since value-sanctity took hold in the first, bodily sanctity took hold in it as well.

אימורי הוא דלא מימר הא מקדש קדישי עוברין - For if they were not consecrated, it would be obvious that one may not substitute whole [animals] of chullin for them. And here one cannot answer with value-sanctity as above, for they do not make a temurah.

הא מני ר' יהודה היא - Some texts read: If R' Yehudah [holds this], how can the first clause be explained, which teaches that limbs of chullin are not substituted for whole consecrated animals? It implies that temurah does not take effect on limbs for a beast, so that the sanctity of temurah would spread over the whole animal because of a limb that was exchanged for a whole animal. Yet with consecration at its start, if one consecrated one limb, holiness spreads over the whole. This Tanna of the Mishnah holds this view, since the Gemara returns: "and is it not with consecrated [animals] that 'its leg is an olah, the whole is an olah'?" This implies that the first Tanna agrees that at the start of consecration it spreads over the whole. R' Shimon, the partner of R' Yossi below in the beraisa, says that at the start of consecration the whole is an olah. We teach about temurah that it does not apply to limbs, either because it expounds "beast for beast", or because it compares temurah to maaser at the end of the chapter: "just as maaser is an individual's sacrifice, etc."; from that very comparison one derives that just as maaser does not apply to limbs, so temurah does not apply to limbs; and so we say in the chapter Behemah HaMekasheh (Chullin 69b). If R' Yehudah said below in the beraisa that holiness does not spread over the whole, how do we explain it? We infer that without temurah the whole animal was sanctified through one limb, e.g., if he sanctified a limb on which life depends; for it says below that R' Yehudah concedes in a matter that makes the animal a terefah, e.g., if he sanctified one of its legs from the arkuvah upward, the whole is an olah, but in temurah we do not expound "beast for beast". This is Rashi's language. It seems one need not read all of this, since it implies that [the Gemara] objects because R' Yossi returned it, and "is it not with consecrated [animals] that the whole is [consecrated]" implies that the first Tanna agrees. In Behemah HaMekasheh there is another version, in which R' Yossi himself returns [the answer], but the first Tanna disagrees with him even at the start of consecration; and so one may say: it is R' Yehudah's view.

Notes

1. 1. A chatas (sin offering) is an animal brought for a sin committed unwittingly. Rashi contrasts the fetus, which R' Yochanan treats as a separate creature, with the young of a chatas, which goes to be slaughtered together with its mother.
2. 2. The firstborn (bechor) of a kosher animal is holy from the womb and is given to the Kohen. The "trick" against the firstborn is to remove it from the Kohen by consecrating it as a burnt offering, so that the owner can benefit from it (general knowledge: Bamidbar 18:17).
3. 3. An olah (burnt offering) is a sacrifice burned entirely on the altar; only its hide goes to the Kohanim (general knowledge: Vayikra 1; 7:8).
4. 4. Kedushas damim, sanctity of value: an animal with a permanent blemish that was already present when it was consecrated is sold, and its price goes to the altar. The animal itself does not become holy as a body (kedushas haguf).
5. 5. The Mishnah (Bechoros 2, 14a): consecrated animals that had a permanent blemish before they were consecrated, once redeemed, are liable for firstborn status and for matnos (priestly gifts). Because the blemish came first, the consecration applied only to their value.
6. 6. Shearing (gizah) and work (avodah): consecrated animals may not be shorn or worked, since their use is restricted to the altar. Only once redeemed do they become ordinary (chullin) and permitted (general knowledge).
7. 7. Yotzin lechulin: the Mishnah speaks of animals that were redeemed; after redemption they become ordinary (chullin), so they may be shorn and worked.
8. 8. Temurah: when a consecrated animal is exchanged for another animal, the substitute also becomes consecrated. The Mishnah teaches that limbs may not be exchanged for fetuses, nor fetuses for limbs.
9. 9. The offspring of consecrated animals: a fetus inside a consecrated animal is itself consecrated and stays as it is. This is the Gemara's answer to the objection.
10. 10. Quoted beraisa: the offspring does not make a temurah, i.e. the young of a consecrated animal does not itself make a substitute. The Gemara asks whose view this beraisa states.
11. 11. R' Yehudah holds that the offspring does make a temurah. The Gemara asks whether the beraisa is his view.
12. 12. R' Yehudah says that consecrating a limb alone does not make the whole animal holy. The Gemara goes on to show that this holds only for a limb of a certain kind.
13. 13. A limb on which life depends: one whose severance would make the animal a terefah (fatally injured, unfit). Consecrating such a limb consecrates the whole animal.
14. 14. The arkuvah is the joint of the leg (the knee or hock) that joins the thigh and the shank (general knowledge).
15. 15. Quoted beraisa: limbs and fetuses can be consecrated, but they cannot be exchanged. The Gemara brings this as a further proof on the question of limbs.