## Temurah Daf 17a

###### Temurah 17a:1
[Temurah 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:1)

לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּתְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in terms of it being permitted **to shear** its wool **and to perform labor** with it. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says** that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah **rendered** the status of one who acts **unwittingly like** that of one who acts **intentionally with regard to substitution,** as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. **But** it **did not render** the status of one who acts **unwittingly like** that of one who acts **intentionally with regard to consecrated** items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective.


###### Temurah 17a:2
[Temurah 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:2)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says:** An animal crossbred from **diverse kinds, and a *tereifa*, and** an animal **born by caesarean section, and a *tumtum*** animal, **and a hermaphrodite** animal are **not sacred** through consecration, **and** if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a *tereifa*, **they do not sanctify** non-sacred animals by means of substitution.


###### Temurah 17a:3
[Temurah 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** that substitution applies whether one substitutes unwittingly or intentionally? The Gemara answers that **the verse states:** “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall substitute his animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is changed **shall be holy”** (Leviticus 27:10). The apparently superfluous term “shall be” serves **to include** the case of one who acts **unwittingly like** that of one who acts **intentionally,** with regard to substitution.


###### Temurah 17a:4
[Temurah 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:4)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: כְּסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְהָמִיר. גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which one who acts **unwittingly** is considered **like** one who acts **intentionally** with regard to substitution? **Ḥizkiyya said:** The circumstances are **of** one **who thinks that it is permitted to substitute** one animal for another. **With regard to a substitute,** the animal becomes consecrated, and the individual is liable to receive **lashes** for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, due to the inclusion of “shall be,” despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. But **in** the equivalent case, where one unwittingly **sanctified** an animal that was unfit to be an offering, he is **not** liable to receive **lashes,** as in this case one is liable to receive lashes only if he acted intentionally and with prior warning.


###### Temurah 17a:5
[Temurah 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:5)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **an alternative version** of Ḥizkiyya’s statement: **With regard to** a non-sacred animal that was declared **a substitute,** the animal becomes **consecrated,** despite the fact that one acted unwittingly. But **with regard to sacrificial** animals, if it was consecrated unwittingly it is **not consecrated.**


###### Temurah 17a:6
[Temurah 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:6)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan** both **state** a different example of the ruling discussed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. They say that the case is of one **who thinks to say:** This animal shall be **a substitute for a burnt offering** that I own, **but** he unwittingly **said:** This animal shall be **a substitute for a peace offering** that I own. In such a case involving substitution he is liable to receive lashes, but if he erred in this manner with regard to consecration, he is exempt from lashes. The Gemara cites **an alternative version: With regard to a substitute of a peace offering,** if one unwittingly declared it a substitute, it **is consecrated. With regard** to **sacrificial** animals, if the animal was unwittingly consecrated, it is **not consecrated.**


###### Temurah 17a:7
[Temurah 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:7)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, כְּסָבוּר לוֹמַר ״שָׁחוֹר״ וְאָמַר ״לָבָן״ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another **alternative version** of the difference between substitution and consecration of an animal: The case is **of** one **who thinks to say:** The first **black** animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute, **but he** unwittingly **said:** The first **white** animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute. **With regard to a substitute,** the white animal is consecrated, and the individual therefore is liable to receive **lashes** for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. Conversely, **in** a similar case of **sacrificial** animals, e.g., one meant to say: The first blemished black animal that comes out of my house shall be consecrated, but he unwittingly said: The first blemished white animal shall be consecrated, if a white animal came out of his house, the animal is not consecrated, and therefore he is **not** liable to receive **lashes.**


###### Temurah 17a:8
[Temurah 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:8)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״תֵּצֵא זוֹ וְתִיכָּנֵס זוֹ״. גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים, בְּאוֹמֵר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶם מוּם נֶאֱכָלִין בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן — לָא לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says** another case of unwitting substitution of an animal. This is referring to a case **of** one who **says:** Let **this** animal **emerge** from its sanctity and become non-sacred, **and** let **that** animal **enter** in its place and become consecrated. This person acted unwittingly, because he mistakenly thought that in this manner the consecrated animal would no longer be sacred. **With regard to** a similar case involving **sacrificial** animals, **where he** has a sacrificial animal that developed a blemish and he incorrectly **says:** Any animals **that have developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption,** and he proceeded to eat the animal without first redeeming it, he is **not** liable to **receive lashes.** But **with regard to a substitute,** if he did this he would be liable to **receive lashes,** as stated above.


###### Temurah 17a:9
[Temurah 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:9)

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״אֶכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת זֶה וְאַקְדִּישׁ״ וְאָמִיר מִדַּעְתִּי, וְנִכְנַס וְהֵמִיר וְהִקְדִּישׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ — גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה לָקֵי, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet says** yet another example of unwittingly performing substitution: It is referring to a case **of** one who **says: I will enter this house and consecrate** an animal intentionally, or: I will enter this house **and substitute** an animal **intentionally, and he entered and substituted or consecrated unintentionally,** i.e., he acted absentmindedly. For his transgression **with regard to substitution** he is liable to **receive lashes,** and for his transgression **with regard to sacrificial** animals he is **not** liable to **receive lashes.**


###### Temurah 17a:10
[Temurah 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:10)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם וְהַטְּרֵפָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **Rabbi Elazar says:** An animal crossbred from **diverse kinds, and a *tereifa*,** and an animal born by caesarean section, and a *tumtum* animal, and a hermaphrodite animal, are neither sacred through consecration nor do they sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. **Shmuel says** in explanation: They **are not sanctified by substitution,** i.e., if one said that an animal in any of these categories should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sanctified. **And** the clause that they **do not sanctify** non-sacred animals means that if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted **to render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute** for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.


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

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, בְּמַקְדִּישׁ וָלָד וְיָצָא [דֶּרֶךְ] דּוֹפֶן. אֲבָל כִּלְאַיִם וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir said: But since** these animals **do not become sanctified, how can** it even be suggested that **they** could **sanctify** another non-sacred animal? **Rather, you find** that the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies **only when** one **sanctifies an animal and afterward it became a *tereifa*,** or **when** one **sanctifies a fetus and it emerged** from the womb **by caesarean section. But** with regard to an animal crossbred from **diverse kinds, and a *tumtum*, and a hermaphrodite, you can find** this ruling **only in** a case of **the offspring of consecrated** female animals, which have sanctity without an act of consecration. **And** this is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **the offspring** of a consecrated animal **renders** a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as **a substitute.**


###### Temurah 17a:12
[Temurah 17a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:12)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לָא קָרְבָה וְלָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, אַף הָנָךְ לָא קָרְבִי וְלָא נָחֲתָא לְהוּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar?** He holds that the *halakhot* of these categories of animal is **like** that of **a non-kosher** domesticated **animal: Just as a non-kosher** domesticated **animal is not sacrificed** as an offering **and inherent sanctity does not rest upon it, so too, these** animals in the categories of a *tereifa*, an animal born by caesarean section, a *tumtum*, or a hermaphrodite **may not be sacrificed** as offerings **and inherent sanctity does not rest upon them.**


###### Temurah 17a:13
[Temurah 17a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלָא קָרֵיב, וְנָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּעַל מוּם קָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ. אִי הָכִי, טְרֵפָה נָמֵי קָא קָרְבָה בְּמִינָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: But** why aren’t animals in these categories compared to **a blemished** animal, **which may not be sacrificed** as an offering **but** nevertheless **inherent sanctity** does **rest upon it?** Rava **said to** Rav Pappa in response: Although **a blemished** animal is not sacrificed on the altar, another animal of **its** same **type,** i.e., an unblemished animal, **is sacrificed** as an offering. By contrast, an animal born by caesarean section, a *tumtum*, and a hermaphrodite may never be sacrificed. Rav Pappa said to Rava: **If so,** what will you say about **a *tereifa*,** as other animals **of its type are sacrificed.** According to your explanation, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a *tereifa*?


###### Temurah 17a:14
[Temurah 17a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, אַף כֹּל פְּסוּל הַגּוּף, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דִּפְסוּל חִסָּרוֹן נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava** retracts his previous answer and instead **says:** The *halakhot* of animals in these categories are **like** those of **a non-kosher** domesticated **animal,** in the following manner: **Just as** the category of **a non-kosher** domesticated **animal is an inherent disqualification,** and such an animal cannot be sanctified or render another animal sanctified, **so too** the same applies to **any** other category of animal that **is an inherent disqualification,** such as a *tereifa*, an animal born by caesarean section, a *tumtum* animal, and a hermaphrodite. This serves **to exclude blemished** animals, **which are disqualified** only because they **lack** certain limbs.


###### Temurah 17a:15
[Temurah 17a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא לְרָבָא: וַהֲלֹא ״שָׂרוּעַ״ וְ״קָלוּט״ כְּתִיב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וְהָא הָנֵי פְּסוּל הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda** raised a difficulty with regard to this answer and **said to Rava:** Is the disqualification of a blemished animal always because it is lacking a limb? **But isn’t** the phrase: **Too long or closed** hooves, **written in the passage** of the Torah addressing blemishes that disqualify an animal; **and these are inherent disqualifications.** The verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or closed hooves, you may offer for a voluntary offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23).


###### Temurah 17a:16
[Temurah 17a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּבְהֵמָה [טְמֵאָה], מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, אַף כֹּל דְּלֵיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּהָא אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava** again retracted his previous answer and **said:** The explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is as I explained initially. The *halakhot* of animals in these categories are **like** those of **a non-kosher** domesticated **animal: Just as a non-kosher** domesticated **animal is not** sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals **of its type, so too** these *halakhot* apply to **any** animal that **is not** sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals **of its type.** This serves **to exclude a blemished** animal, **because** other animals of **its type are** sacrificed on the altar.


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

מַאי אָמְרַתְּ: טְרֵפָה אִיכָּא בְּמִינַהּ? לָא דָּמְיָא לְבַעַל מוּם, בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, וּטְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם דְּמוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** did **you say** to challenge this explanation? You said that in the case of **a *tereifa*, there are** other animals **of its type** that are sacrificed, and if so, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a *tereifa*? The answer is that a *tereifa* **is not similar to a blemished animal,** as **a non-kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, and a *tereifa* is forbidden for consumption.** This serves **to exclude a blemished** animal, **which is permitted for consumption.**


###### Temurah 17a:18
[Temurah 17a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:18)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַטְּרֵיפָה צְרִיכָה מוּם קָבוּעַ לִפְדּוֹת עָלָיו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a *tereifa*, **Shmuel says:** One **who consecrates** an animal that is **a *tereifa* is required** to wait until it develops **a permanent blemish,** on account **of which he may redeem it.** The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this statement of Shmuel. Since the meat of a *tereifa* is unfit for consumption and may only be fed to the dogs, why does it require redemption? Should one **learn from** this that one **redeems sacrificial** animals in order **to feed them to the dogs?** But this is contrary to the accepted *halakha* (see 31a).


###### Temurah 17a:19
[Temurah 17a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:19)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹשָׂה קְדוּשָּׁה (לְמִיתָה, כְּסָבוּר מוּתָּר לְהַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה — קָדֵישׁ, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — לָא קָדֵישׁ) לָמוּת, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that the statement of Shmuel was as follows: If one consecrates an animal that is a *tereifa*, it **becomes sanctified** until it is time for the animal **to die,** so that even after its death it must be buried and may not be redeemed. **And Rabbi Oshaya says:** If one consecrates an animal that is a *tereifa*, this is **like nothing other than** one who **consecrates mere wood and stones,** which cannot become sanctified with inherent sanctity but only for their value, and which therefore can be redeemed. Consequently, a consecrated *tereifa* animal may be redeemed even if it is going to be fed to the dogs.


###### Temurah 17a:20
[Temurah 17a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:20)

תְּנַן: כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה, אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים. טַעְמָא שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ, הָא הָיוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן! דִּלְמָא הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְגוּפַהּ, לָא נָחֲתָא לַהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel. **We learned** in a mishna (31a): With regard to **all sacrificial** animals **that became *tereifa*, one may not redeem them** and render them non-sacred, **because** their consumption is forbidden; and **one does not redeem sacrificial** animals **to feed them to** the **dogs.** The Gemara analyzes this ruling: **The reason** that they may not be redeemed is because **they became** *tereifa* after they had already been consecrated. **Consequently,** if **they were** already *tereifa* **from the outset,** when they were consecrated, one **may redeem them.** The Gemara answers: **Perhaps this *tanna* holds** that **anywhere that** an animal **itself** is **not fit** for sacrifice, **inherent sanctity does not rest upon it** at all.


###### Temurah 17a:21
[Temurah 17a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:21)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן, וּטְרֵיפָה, וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁין בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from the mishna. **Come** and **hear,** as **Rabbi Elazar says:** An animal crossbred from **diverse kinds, and a *tereifa*, and** an animal **born by caesarean section, and a *tumtum*** animal, **and a hermaphrodite** animal are **not sacred** through consecration **and they do not sanctify** non-sacred animals by means of substitution. **And Shmuel says** in explanation: They **are not sacred with regard to substitution,** i.e., if one said that any of these animals should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal it does not become sanctified; **and** they **do not sanctify** non-sacred animals, i.e., if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted **to render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute** for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.


###### Temurah 17a:22
[Temurah 17a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/17a:22)

וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין קְדוֹשִׁין, מֵהֵיכָן מַקְדִּישִׁין? אֶלָּא אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה, הָא הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir said: But since they do not become sanctified, how can they sanctify** another non-sacred animal? **Rather, you find** the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies **only when** one **sanctifies an animal and afterward it becomes a *tereifa*.** The Gemara explains the difficulty: **This** indicates that if it **was a *tereifa* from the outset,** then **inherent sanctity does not rest upon it;** this ruling contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who says that such an animal must be buried when it dies.