## Temurah Daf 11b

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״ — מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳, וְלֹא כּוּלּוֹ לַה׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** One **might** have thought that if **one says: The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering,** the sanctity should extend to the whole animal and **all of** the animal **will be a burnt offering.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if it is an animal of those that they bring as an offering to the Lord, **anything of it that one gives to the Lord, it shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:9). The verse indicates that the part **of it** that one gives will be sacred **unto the Lord, and not all of** the animal will be sacred **unto the Lord.**


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

יָכוֹל תֵּצֵא לְחוּלִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? תִּמָּכֵר לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וְדָמֶיהָ חוּלִּין, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אֵבֶר שֶׁבָּהּ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, one **might** have thought that the consecrated limb may be redeemed and thereby **transferred to non-sacred** status. Therefore **the verse states: “Shall be sacred,”** teaching that the limb remains consecrated. **How** is **this** possible, i.e., what should one do with the animal? The animal **should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings** to an individual who will sacrifice the entire animal as a burnt offering, **and the payment** received **for** the animal will be **non-sacred, except for the payment** received in exchange **for** the **limb of** the animal that was consecrated. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.**


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״, שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳״, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: From where** is it derived in the case of **one who says: The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering, that all of it becomes a burnt offering? Since it is stated: “All that any man give of such to the Lord** shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:9), one might have thought that individual limbs can be consecrated. **When it says: “Shall be sacred,”** this phrase serves **to include all of** the animal, indicating that it all becomes sacred.


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

אָמַר מָר: תִּמָּכֵר לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וְהָא קָמַיְיתֵי בְּהֵמָה מְחוּסֶּרֶת אֵבֶר? אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **The Master said:** The animal **should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings. But** it is as though the purchaser is **bringing an animal** that **lacks** that **limb** that was consecrated by the previous owner, as his share in the offering consists only of the balance of the animal. **Rava says:** The *baraita* does not mean that the animal should be sold to anyone obligated to bring a burnt offering, but specifically **to one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering with** all the limbs upon which **its life** depends. Since the consecrated limb is not one of these, it does not detract from the purchaser’s vow.


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה. רָבָא אָמַר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ נְבֵילָה. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁהִיא מֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a dispute between *amora’im*: **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rabbi Yehuda** and Rabbi Meir **concede with regard to** a limb **whose** removal **renders** the animal **a *tereifa*.** If one consecrated such a limb, the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal. **Rava says:** Even in such a case, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda maintain that the sanctity does not extend throughout the entire animal. Yet, they concede **with regard to** a limb **whose** removal **renders it an animal carcass,** i.e., without which the animal would die so soon that it assumes the status of a carcass. **And Rav Sheshet says:** They conceded only **with regard to** a limb **whose** removal would cause **it** to **die** immediately.


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַב חִסְדָּא לְרָבָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ טְרֵפָה חַיָּה. רַב חִסְדָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, וְרָבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** difference **is there between** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda and** that of **Rava?** The difference **between them** is with regard to the issue of whether **a *tereifa* can survive. Rav Ḥisda holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who said** that **a *tereifa* cannot survive** but will shortly die. Therefore, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concede that if one consecrates a limb whose removal would render an animal a *tereifa*, the sanctity applies to the whole animal, since it is a vital organ. **And Rava holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **a *tereifa* can survive,** and consequently the consecration of such a limb does not extend to the entire animal.


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

וּמַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רָבָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִיטְּלָה יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ — נְבֵילָה. רָבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further explains: **And what** difference **is there between** the opinion of **Rava and** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet?** The difference **between them** is with regard to the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said:** If **the thigh,** i.e., the hind leg of the animal, **and its recess were removed,** the animal is considered **a carcass** and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. **Rava holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** and therefore he maintains that according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, if one consecrates its thigh and its recess the sanctity extends throughout the animal, as it is a vital limb. But **Rav Sheshet does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** and therefore the sanctity in such a case does not extend to the entire animal.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ. לָאו מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection: Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said:** With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,** that the sanctity does not extend to the whole animal, **appears** correct **with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life does not depend, and the statement of Rabbi Yosei** appears correct **with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life depends.** May one **not** conclude **by inference** from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **that** Rabbi Yosei **disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda** even with regard to a limb upon which the animal’s life depends, contrary to the statements of the *amora’im* above?


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶלָּא נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ — לָאו מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּכוּלְּהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s comment: **The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** correct **with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life does not depend,** is not difficult, as one learns **by inference** only **that** Rabbi Yehuda **disagrees with Rabbi Yosei** with regard to such a case. **But** when he says that **the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears** correct **with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life depends,** must one **not** conclude **by inference that** Rabbi Yosei **disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda** with regard to this case as well? **And** this is apparently **a conclusive refutation of all** the opinions of the *amora’im* cited above, who maintain that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to vital organs.


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

לָא, חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the *baraita* citing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement **is incomplete, and this** is what **it is teaching: The statement of Rabbi Yosei appears** correct **to Rabbi Yehuda** in the case **of** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life depends, as even Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with** Rabbi Yosei **only with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life does not depend. But with regard to** a limb **upon which** the animal’s **life depends,** Rabbi Yehuda **concedes to him** that the sanctity extends to the entire animal.


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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: בָּעוֹף מַהוּ? ״בְּהֵמָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָאו ״בְּהֵמָה״ הִיא, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״קׇרְבָּן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי נָמֵי ״קׇרְבָּן״ הוּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ According to Rabbi Yosei, if one consecrates one limb of an animal the sanctity extends to the entire animal. **Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to a bird** that is fit for sacrifice, **what is** the *halakha* according to this opinion? Since this *halakha* is derived, as stated above, from the verse: “And if it is an animal of those that they bring as an offering to the Lord, anything of it that one gives to the Lord, it shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:9), one can contend that **the Merciful One states “animal,” and this** bird is **not** considered **an animal. Or perhaps** one should stress that **the Merciful One states “offering,” and this** bird is **also** considered **an offering.** The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁ אֵבֶר לְדָמָיו, מַהוּ דְּתֵיחוֹת לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף? מִי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים — נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ נָמֵי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, וּמִדְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ לְחַד אֵבֶר — אַקְדְּשַׁיהּ לְכוּלַּהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא חַד מִגּוֹ אָמַר, תְּרֵי מִגּוֹ לָא אָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** another **dilemma:** According to Rabbi Yosei, if one **consecrated a limb** with the intention of selling it and purchasing an offering with **its payment, what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether the entire animal **is imbued with inherent sanctity? Does** one **say** that **since it is imbued with sanctity** that inheres in its **value, it is likewise imbued with inherent sanctity, and** then furthermore, from the fact **that he consecrated one limb he has consecrated the entire** animal? **Or perhaps** one **says** a claim using the logic that begins with: **Since,** only **once,** but one does **not say two** claims together using the logic that begins with: **Since,** i.e., one cannot make both of the suggested expansions simultaneously.


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

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּידֵיהּ, דְּהָאָמַר רָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו — קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Resolve** the dilemma **by** citing Rava’s **own** statement. **As, didn’t Rava say:** If **one consecrated a male** ram **for its value,** since the ram is fit for sacrifice, it is automatically **consecrated** with **inherent sanctity?** The same reasoning should apply here: Although the limb was consecrated for its value, since the animal is fit for sacrifice, once the entire animal is consecrated for its value it should automatically assume inherent sanctity.


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

הָתָם — דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ, הָכָא — דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ חַד אֵבֶר, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that this is not a proof: **There, where he** initially **consecrated all of it,** the whole animal assumes inherent sanctity. **Here,** Rava is referring to a case **where he consecrated** only **one limb** at the outset, and one must invoke two separate expansions to apply inherent sanctity to the whole animal. The question stands: **What** is the *halakha*? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ [אַבָּיֵי] מֵרָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁ חַד אֵבֶר, מַהוּ בְּגִיזָּה? תִּפְשׁוֹט לָךְ מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תָגוֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנְךָ״, אֲבָל אַתָּה גּוֹזֵז בְּשֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one consecrates a limb, the sanctity does not extend to the entire animal. A Sage **posed a dilemma to Rava:** If one **consecrated one limb, what is** the *halakha* **with regard to shearing** the wool of that limb? Rava replied: **You** can **resolve** the dilemma **from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“Nor shear the firstborn of your flock”** (Deuteronomy 15:19). This verse indicates that the prohibition against shearing applies only to an animal belonging entirely to you, **but you may shear** the wool **of** a firstborn that **belongs** both **to you and to others,** i.e., gentiles. Here too, since the animal is jointly owned by the Temple and by the one who consecrated it, the prohibition against shearing should not apply at all.


###### Temurah 11b:16
[Temurah 11b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11b:16)

הָתָם, לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשָּׁה כְּלָל; הָכָא, נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשָּׁה. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: הָתָם, אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ; הָכָא, בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sage responded that this is not a proof: **There,** a firstborn animal owned partly by a gentile **was not imbued with sanctity at all,** whereas **here it was** at least partly **imbued with sanctity,** and therefore it is possible that the limb is prohibited with respect to shearing. The Gemara cites **another version** of this answer: **There,** in the case of a firstborn animal owned partly by a gentile, **it is not in** the Jew’s **power to consecrate** his share. Therefore, the prohibition against shearing does not apply. But **here it is in his power to consecrate** one limb, and sanctity applies to it. Therefore, one can claim that the limb should be prohibited with respect to shearing.


###### Temurah 11b:17
[Temurah 11b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11b:17)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁ עוֹרָהּ, מַהוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה? תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״מָה שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ — מוּתֶּרֶת בְּגִיזָּה, וַאֲסוּרָה בַּעֲבוֹדָה, מִפְּנֵי כִּחוּשׁ עוּבָּר שֶׁבָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye posed a dilemma to Rava:** If one **consecrated** only **the skin of** an animal, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether it may be used **for labor?** Rava responded: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: In the case of **one who says: That which is in the womb of this** animal **is a burnt offering,** it is **permitted** for the mother **to be shorn but** it **is prohibited** to use the animal **for labor, due to** the inevitable **weakening of the fetus inside it.** The same should apply to an animal whose skin alone was consecrated, as performing labor with the animal would reduce the value of its skin.


###### Temurah 11b:18
[Temurah 11b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי קָתָנֵי אֲסוּרָה בַּעֲבוֹדָה — מִדְּרַבָּנַן. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּגִיזָּה נָמֵי תִּיתְּסַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲבוֹדָה דְּמַיכְחֲשָׁא — גָּזְרִי בַּהּ רַבָּנַן, גִּיזָּה — לָא גָּזְרִי בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rava: **When** that *baraita* **teaches** that it **is prohibited** to use the mother **for labor,** this applies **by rabbinic law.** I was asking whether it is prohibited by Torah law. Rava responded: **If so,** that the *baraita* is referring to rabbinic law, then **even shearing it should be prohibited.** Abaye **said to him: With regard to labor, which weakens** the animal, **the Sages issued a decree** rendering it prohibited; **with regard to shearing,** which does not weaken the animal, **the Sages did not issue a decree** rendering it prohibited.


###### Temurah 11b:19
[Temurah 11b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/11b:19)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַב יוֹסֵף: הִיא שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ חוּלִּין, וּשְׁחָטָהּ בִּפְנִים, מַהוּ? לְמַאן דְּאָמַר וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁין, מִי הָוֵי חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye posed a dilemma to Rav Yosef:** If one consecrates a pregnant animal as a peace offering but excludes its fetus, and as a result **it is** sanctified as **a peace offering and its offspring is non-sacred, and he slaughtered** the pregnant animal **inside** the Temple courtyard as appropriate for a peace offering, **what is** the *halakha*? Or, if one consecrates an animal and it subsequently becomes pregnant, then **according to the one who said** that the **offspring of sacrificial** animals **are sanctified** only **when they come into being,** i.e., at the time of their birth, **are** offspring such as this subject to the prohibition against slaughtering **non-sacred** animals **in the** Temple **courtyard,** since they are not yet born? **Or** are they **not** subject to the prohibition, since they themselves were not slaughtered?