## Temurah Daf 25b

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

הַמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, גִּיטּוֹ וְיָדוֹ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a master **who emancipates half of his slave,** half of the slave is **emancipated,** and he is a half-slave half-freeman. Although a slave does not have the ability to acquire items, in this case he does acquire his freedom because **his bill** of manumission **and his ability** to acquire himself **come at the same time.**


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

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: שִׁיְּירוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, אַמַּאי זָכְתָה לוֹ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: נִרְאִין שֶׁהָעֶבֶד זוֹכֶה לְקַבֵּל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ מִיָּד רַבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִיַּד רַבּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּה: אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that if **one reserved** a consecration **it is** considered **reserved,** and **a fetus is not** considered **the thigh of its mother,** but the mother and the fetus are separate entities, **why** does the mother **acquire** freedom **for** the fetus in a case where the master freed the fetus but not the mother? The Gemara continues: **And isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: It **appears** to be the case **that a slave can acquire a bill of manumission for another** slave **from the hand of his** fellow’s **master who is not** also **his** own master, **but not from the hand of his own master,** i.e., not if both of them are enslaved to the same person. Here too, how can the mother receive the bill of manumission for the fetus from the hand of their shared master? **Rather, conclude from it** that **if he reserved** a consecration **it is not** considered **reserved, and the refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


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

לֵימָא אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּוְלָדֵךְ עֶבֶד״ — וְלָדָהּ כָּמוֹהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדוֹנֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that the claim that **if one reserved** a consecration **it is reserved is** subject to a dispute between ***tanna’im*? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says to his** pregnant Canaanite **maidservant: You are hereby a free woman but your offspring** shall remain **a slave, the offspring is** emancipated **like her.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. And the Rabbis say: His statement is upheld.** This is **because it is stated: “The woman and her children shall be her master’s”** (Exodus 21:4).


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

קְרָא מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא לְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּקָתָנֵי וְלָדָהּ כָּמוֹהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדוֹנֶיהָ״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה לַאֲדוֹנֶיהָ, וְלָדָהּ לַאֲדוֹנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: **What is the derivation** of the **verse** here that indicates support **for** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who rule in this case that the child of a freed maidservant remains a slave? **Rava said:** The verse does not support the opinion of the Rabbis; rather, **the verse** that the *baraita* **states** is cited as support **for** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it teaches,** i.e., the *baraita* should be understood as follows: **The offspring is** emancipated **like her, as it is stated: “The woman and her children shall be her master’s,”** which indicates that **when the woman** belongs **to the master her offspring** likewise belongs **to the master,** but if the woman is freed the offspring is also freed.


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

מַאי לַָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: שִׁיְּירוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מְשׁוּיָּיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** correct to say **that** the Sages **disagree over this** point, **that Rabbi Yosei** HaGelili **holds** that **if he reserved it, it is not** considered **reserved,** and therefore the mother and the fetus are treated as one entity, **and the Rabbis maintain** that **it is** considered **reserved.** If so, this would mean that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion is the subject of a dispute between *tanna’im*.


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

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שִׁיְּירוֹ — מְשׁוּיָּיר, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאֲדוֹנֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you that everyone** holds that if **he reserved it, it is** considered **reserved, and here this is the reason** that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili rules that the offspring is freed with the mother, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili himself explains: It is **that the verse states: “The woman and her children shall be her master’s.”** This verse teaches that the status of the offspring follows the status of the mother with regard to slavery, but not because the fetus is considered a part of its mother.


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

אֶלָּא וַדַּאי לֵימָא כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַחַטָּאת וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה חַי, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אֵין נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, certainly we shall say** that the opinion that if he reserved it, it is reserved, **is** subject to a dispute between these ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** that there are two *baraitot* that discuss the case of **one who slaughters a sin offering,** which is assumed to have been consecrated when it was pregnant, **and he found a four-month-old** fetus **alive** inside. **It is taught** in **one** *baraita*: The slaughter of the mother is also considered a slaughter with regard to the fetus, and therefore the fetus is considered a sin offering. This means that its meat is **eaten only by males of the priesthood, and it is eaten only for one day, and it is eaten only inside the curtains.** In the Tabernacle in the wilderness this area was surrounded by curtains. The corresponding area in the Temple is the courtyard.


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

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְכׇל אָדָם, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: The slaughter of the mother is also considered a slaughter for the fetus to the extent that it permits it to be eaten, but the fetus is non-sacred, and therefore **it may be eaten by any person, and may be eaten in any place, and may be eaten forever,** with no time limit.


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

מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״שִׁיְּירוֹ״ — אֵינוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר, וּמָר סָבַר: ״שִׁיְּירוֹ״ — מְשׁוּיָּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** correct to say that these ***tanna’im*** disagree over this point, **that the first *tanna* holds:** If **he reserved it, it is not** considered **reserved,** and therefore the mother and the fetus are considered one entity and the status of the mother applies to the fetus; **and the Sage** in the second *baraita* **holds: If he reserved it, it is** considered **reserved,** which means that the fetus is considered an independent entity and is non-sacred. If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion is the subject of a dispute between *tanna’im*.


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

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ — מְשׁוּיָּיר, וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, וּמָר סָבַר: וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could **say to you that everyone** holds that **if he reserved it, it is** considered **reserved,** and therefore a person can consecrate an animal while reserving the fetus as non-sacred. **And these *tanna’im* disagree over this** following point: In the case of an animal that was consecrated as a sin offering and only then became pregnant, one **Sage holds: The offspring of sacrificial** animals **become consecrated** when they are born and **come into being,** and as that fetus which was found alive inside the mother was never born, it never became consecrated. **And** one **Sage holds: The offspring of sacrificial** animals **become consecrated in the womb of their mother,** which means that the fetus that was found alive inside the mother was already consecrated.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — בְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁהּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעַבְּרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead an alternative explanation of the dispute between these two *baraitot*: It is **not difficult** for Rabbi Yoḥanan. Everyone holds that if he reserved it, it is considered reserved, and everyone also maintains that offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated when they are born. Rather, these two *baraitot* are discussing two different cases. **Here,** the second *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the owner **consecrated** the animal before it became pregnant **and** only **afterward it became pregnant.** Consequently, the offspring is non-sacred, as it was not in the womb when the mother was consecrated, and as it was never born, it was not consecrated at the moment of birth either.


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

כָּאן — בְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **there,** the first *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the animal first **became pregnant and afterward** the owner **consecrated it.** Since the owner did not reserve the fetus from the consecration of the mother, the fetus was consecrated as a sin offering together with the mother.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: מִמַּאי דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם שִׁיְּירוֹ מְשׁוּיָּיר? דִלְמָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this** claim: **From where** is it known **that the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** is that **if he reserved it, it is** considered **reserved? Perhaps** Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that if he reserved it, it is not considered reserved, and **this is the reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Yoḥanan:** It is **that** one can achieve atonement with the offspring of a pregnant animal he set aside as a sin offering, as he maintains that **a person can achieve atonement with** the **enhancement of consecrated** property, and the fetus is considered an enhancement of consecrated property.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְיָתֵיב לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְלָא אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ הַאי שִׁינּוּיָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם דְּאָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna said** to Rava: **Rabbi Elazar** was **the pupil of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan,** and Rabbi Elazar assumed that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan was that he held that if he reserved it, it is considered reserved, and he questioned Rabbi Yoḥanan himself about his statement based on that assumption. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan did not answer him** with **this answer,** i.e., that the real reason for his opinion is that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property. **And** if so, how can **you say** that **the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** is **that a person can achieve atonement with** the **enhancement of consecrated** property? Therefore, it must be that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is that he held that if he reserved it, it is considered reserved.


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

אִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁלָמִים״ נִמְלַךְ כּוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא וְלָדָן שְׁלָמִים, אֶלָּא כֹּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵי מִימְּלֵךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: If he reconsidered after saying: This animal is a peace offering, it is **obvious** that he cannot remove the status he already applied to the animal, and that **the offspring** remains **a peace offering. Can one change his mind anytime that he wants?**


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמַר בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּר, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר כְּדִיבּוּר, וְהַאי עַיּיוֹנֵי הוּא דְּקָמְעַיֵּין — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** This *halakha* **is necessary only** in a case **where** he reconsidered and **said:** Its offspring is a burnt offering, **within the time required for speaking a short phrase. Lest you say:** The halakhic status of a pause that lasts **less than the time required for speaking a short phrase is like** that of continuous **speech,** and therefore the offspring is a burnt offering, **and that** time **he was** merely **prolonging his thought** but not changing his mind; consequently, the mishna **teaches us** that he changed his mind and it is not considered continuous speech.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and the other a peace offering, and he said with regard to a third, non-sacred animal: **This** animal **is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, that** animal **is the substitute of the burnt offering.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** Once he designated it as the substitute of the burnt offering, his initial statement takes effect and the animal assumes the sanctity of the burnt offering.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכֵן נִתְכַּוֵּין תְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִים, וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״ נִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset,** when he said that the animal is the substitute of the burnt offering, to state that the animal is also the substitute of the peace offering, then **since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously,** i.e., one must first say one designation and then the other, **his statement stands,** and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. **And if** it was only **after he said:** This animal is hereby **the substitute of the burnt offering,** that **he reconsidered and said: The substitute of the peace offering, that** entire animal **is the substitute of the burnt offering.**