## Temurah Daf 25a

###### Temurah 25a:1
[Temurah 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:1)

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.

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


###### Temurah 25a:2
[Temurah 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:2)

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.

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


###### Temurah 25a:3
[Temurah 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:3)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:4
[Temurah 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:4)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:5
[Temurah 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:5)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:6
[Temurah 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:6)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:7
[Temurah 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 25a:8
[Temurah 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:8)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:9
[Temurah 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Temurah 25a:10
[Temurah 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 25a:11
[Temurah 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:11)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:12
[Temurah 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:12)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:13
[Temurah 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:13)

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.

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


###### Temurah 25a:14
[Temurah 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:14)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:15
[Temurah 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:15)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:16
[Temurah 25a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:16)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:17
[Temurah 25a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:17)

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!

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


###### Temurah 25a:18
[Temurah 25a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:18)

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

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


###### Temurah 25a:19
[Temurah 25a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 25a:20
[Temurah 25a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/25a:20)

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

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