## Temurah Daf 11a

###### Temurah 11a:1
[Temurah 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:1)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַקְדִּישִׁין אֵיבָרִין וּמְמִירִין בָּהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא מְמִירִין בָּהֶן, וְעוּבָּרִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן אֵין מְמִירִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:2
[Temurah 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:2)

בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים, בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — הוּא דְּלָא עָבְדִין תְּמוּרָה, הָא אַבָּרַאי — עָבְדִי. וְהָא תְּנַן: אֵין הַוְּולָדוֹת עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה! הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:3
[Temurah 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:3)

אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵבָרִין מִי קָדְשִׁי? הָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ — כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 11a:4
[Temurah 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּדָבָר הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:5
[Temurah 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:5)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַחַטָּאת, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן אַרְבַּע חַי, קָתָנֵי חֲדָא: אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְיוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Temurah 11a:6
[Temurah 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:6)

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְכׇל אָדָם, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בַּעֲזָרָה. מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּמָר סָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עַל עוּבָּרִין, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עַל עוּבָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Temurah 11a:7
[Temurah 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:7)

לָא, הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, וּמָר סָבַר: וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:8
[Temurah 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:8)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, חַד תַּנָּא הוּא, חֲדָא מֵהָלֵין מַתְנְיָיתָא — בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְעַבְּרָה, וַחֲדָא מִנְּהוֹן — שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 11a:9
[Temurah 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:9)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כִּלְאַיִם, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, טוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Temurah 11a:10
[Temurah 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:10)

וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינָן קְדוֹשִׁין, הֵיאַךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין? אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, בְּמַקְדִּישׁ וָלָד וְיָצָא [דֶּרֶךְ] דּוֹפֶן. אַלְמָא קָדֵישׁ וָלָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 11a:11
[Temurah 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:11)

אָמְרִי: בְּתָם בִּמְעֵי תְמִימָה, אֲפִילּוּ בַּר פְּדָא נָמֵי מוֹדֵי דְּקָדֵישׁ. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּתָם בִּמְעֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם. בַּר פְּדָא סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִימֵּיהּ לָא מִקַּדְּשָׁא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, הוּא נָמֵי לָא קָדֵישׁ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: הָנֵי כִּשְׁתֵּי בְהֵמוֹת נִינְהוּ, אִימֵּיהּ הִיא דְּלָא מִיקַּדְּשָׁא, אֲבָל הוּא קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 11a:12
[Temurah 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:12)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲבָל כִּלְאַיִם וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּוַלְדֵי קֳדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:13
[Temurah 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:13)

וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. הָלֵין הוּא דְּלָא קָדְשִׁי גּוּפַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל עוּבָּרִין אֲחֵרִים קְדוֹשִׁין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 11a:14
[Temurah 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּם בִּמְעֵי תְּמִימָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קָדֵישׁ גּוּפֵיהּ, אֶלָּא כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּמְעֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם, דְּבַר פְּדָא סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִימֵּיהּ נָמֵי לָא קָדֵישׁ גּוּפַהּ — אִיהוּ נָמֵי לָא קָדֵישׁ אֶלָּא לִדְמֵי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִימֵּיהּ לָא קָדְשָׁה לְגוּפַהּ — וָלָד מִיהָא קָדֵישׁ לְגוּפֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 11a:15
[Temurah 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ״ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.