Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 11 for kids: One Part or All?

תמורה י״א

🧩 This daf asks when making one part of an animal sacred makes the whole animal sacred. It also asks whether a fetus can be sacred while still inside its mother.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 11a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 11b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 11

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 11 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 11a, in English Tab translation (13)
  1. One consecrates limbs and substitutes for them — A person consecrates one limb and can afterward make a substitute for the animal, because the sanctity extends to the whole animal. If only the limb were sacred, this would be impossible: even Rabbi Yosei, who permits substituting a limb for a whole consecrated animal, agrees that one cannot substitute a whole animal for a sacred limb, much less one limb for another. The later clause teaches the reverse limitation: declaring one limb of a non-sacred animal a substitute for a whole sacred animal does not sanctify it. Thus, consecrating a limb can sanctify the whole animal, but substituting a limb cannot.
  2. Fetuses sanctified in their mothers’ wombs — For example, the offspring of consecrated animals: although they are sacred, one cannot substitute an animal for them while they are in the womb. This is not presented as a contrast between initial consecration and substitution. Rather, after teaching that one can substitute for an animal sanctified through one limb, the baraita teaches that one cannot substitute for a fetus still in the womb. This follows Rabbi Yehuda, who permits substitution for offspring after birth; the other Sages do not permit it even then.
  3. Only the male priests — As is the law for a sin offering. At this point, the Gemara assumes the animal was already pregnant when consecrated. If it was consecrated before becoming pregnant, everyone would agree that its fetus remains non-sacred until birth, since the offspring of consecrated animals become sacred when they are born, not in the womb.
  4. Is this not a dispute between tanna’im? — The Gemara assumes that, according to the first baraita, consecration takes effect on the fetus itself when its pregnant mother is consecrated, so it is sacred immediately. According to the second, it becomes sacred only through its mother, like other offspring of consecrated animals, which become sacred at birth. The baraita specifies that the fetus is alive to teach that even this does not count as its birth: because its gestation is incomplete, it remains non-sacred according to the second baraita.
  5. No — The baraitot are not discussing an animal consecrated while pregnant, but a consecrated animal that later became pregnant. The first view holds that the offspring of consecrated animals become sacred only when they are born, not while still in the womb.
  6. When they come into being — This wording follows the verse from which the law about offspring is derived: ‘Only your sacred things that shall come to be yours’ (Deuteronomy 12:26). The Sages explain ‘that shall come to be yours’ as referring to offspring, in the second chapter of Bekhorot.
  7. Or, if you wish, say both baraitot have one tanna — He agrees with Rabbi Yochanan that consecration can take effect on a fetus immediately. The baraita saying the fetus is not sacred concerns an animal consecrated before it became pregnant: its offspring becomes sacred only at birth. The baraita saying the fetus is sacred immediately concerns an animal consecrated while pregnant. In that case, the fetus is not treated simply as part of its mother.
  8. They are not sanctified through substitution — If these animals are non-sacred, exchanging one for a consecrated animal does not make it sacred. This is so even though substitution can take effect on an animal with a permanent blemish. All the more so, directly consecrating one of these animals does not give it bodily sanctity.
  9. And they do not sanctify — If one of these animals is sacred, exchanging a non-sacred animal for it does not make that animal a substitute. Rabbi Meir asks how one of them could be sacred in the first place: if none can acquire bodily sanctity, how could it produce a substitute?
  10. You find such a case — One of these animals can be sacred if it was consecrated before it became a tereifa. Its consecration preceded its disqualifying condition.
  11. When one consecrates a fetus — One consecrates it in its mother’s womb, so sanctity takes effect immediately, and it is subsequently born by caesarean section.
  12. These cases need to be stated — It is necessary to say that they cannot produce a substitute. The continuation is explained in the chapter ‘There Are Among the Offerings’ in Temura.
  13. A hybrid, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite are found only among the offspring of consecrated animals — A consecrated animal became pregnant with one of them after its consecration. The case of a fetus consecrated in the womb and then born by caesarean section shows that consecration takes effect on a fetus: it cannot produce a substitute because of how it was born, but had it been born normally, it would have retained the original bodily sanctity and could have produced one. This cannot mean sanctity of monetary value alone, since that would not enable it to produce a substitute even if born normally.
Tosafot on Temurah 11a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. One consecrates limbs and substitutes — This is Rashi’s reading. It means that if consecrating a limb extends sanctity to the whole animal, one may substitute for the whole animal. But declaring a limb of an unconsecrated animal a substitute has no effect. Rashi apparently includes “and substitutes” because the Gemara soon asks, “Are limbs consecrated?” That question follows from the statement that one can substitute for limbs: it must mean that consecrating the limb made the whole animal sacred. But this reading is unconvincing. Most manuscripts omit “and substitutes,” and including it would undermine the mishna’s contrast between what one can do in initial consecration and in substitution. The Gemara’s question follows instead from the mishna’s statement that one may consecrate fetuses and limbs: a limb alone could not have been consecrated unless its sanctity extended to the whole animal.
  2. One who slaughters a sin offering — For example, a female goat. It could not be a ewe, since a ewe cannot give birth within its first year, as stated in Bekhorot 19b.
  3. And finds a live four-month-old fetus inside it — In a small animal, a five-month-old fetus is not rendered permissible by slaughtering its mother, according to the Rabbis, as stated in Hullin 74a.
Rashi on Temurah 11b, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. Shall be sacred — that limb is sacred. Since it is sacred, the animal can no longer be slaughtered for a non-sacred purpose. The whole animal must therefore be sold, apart from the value of that limb: the seller may not take payment for a limb he consecrated and cannot sell.
  2. This is the reading — “This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.”
  3. Lacking a limb — that limb does not belong to the buyer; it is offered to fulfill the seller’s obligation. The buyer has therefore not offered a complete burnt offering, though he vowed to offer the entire animal for his own obligation.
  4. When he says, ‘It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering with the limbs on which its life depends’ — he vows to offer all the animal’s vital limbs, and he has done so. The seller consecrated only a nonvital limb, such as the leg below the knee. Had he consecrated a limb whose removal would make the animal a tereifa, sanctity would have spread to the whole animal, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. Another version, from the Jerusalem Talmud, asks: How can the buyer bring an animal whose body is not entirely his? It answers that he said, ‘The value of one zuz from this animal is for a burnt offering.’ He acquired that value and has fulfilled his vow, since he did not vow to bring an entire burnt offering.
  5. Rabbi Yehuda concedes — that sanctity spreads to the whole animal.
  6. Whose removal renders it a carcass — such as the thigh and its socket. Rava does not say Rabbi Yehuda concedes when removal would merely make it a tereifa, such as removing the leg above the knee; the reason is explained below. Rav Sheshet’s case is a limb such as the heart or the esophagus.
  7. According to the view that a tereifa cannot survive — this is disputed in the discussion of tereifot in tractate Chullin. Since it cannot survive, the consecrated limb is vital, and Rabbi Yehuda therefore concedes.
  8. Rava holds that a tereifa can survive — so the limb is not one on which its life depends.
  9. If its thigh and socket were removed, it is a carcass — although still alive, it imparts impurity like a carcass, because it is regarded as dead rather than living.
  10. Rava agrees with Rabbi Elazar — so consecrating the thigh and its socket means consecrating a limb on which the animal’s life depends.
  11. But Rav Sheshet does not accept Rabbi Elazar’s view — the first chapter of tractate Chullin explains the extent of the socket: when the animal lies down, it appears to be missing part of its body.
  12. This is what it means: Rabbi Yosei’s statement appears correct to Rabbi Yehuda — Rabbi Yehuda agrees with him about a limb on which the animal’s life depends.
  13. What is the law for a bird? — the question concerns Rabbi Yosei’s view: If one consecrates the leg of a turtledove or young pigeon, does sanctity spread to the whole bird?
  14. The Torah says ‘animal’ — in the verse that says, ‘Anything of it that one gives,’ the words ‘animal’ and ‘offering’ appear.
  15. If one consecrates a limb for its value, does bodily sanctity take effect? — does it extend to the whole animal so that the animal itself is offered as a burnt offering? Perhaps, according to Rabbi Yosei, sanctity for its value spreads from the limb to the whole animal. Then, since the animal itself is fit for a burnt offering, bodily sanctity also takes effect: why sell it and bring a burnt offering with the proceeds?
  16. Two steps of ‘since’ — he consecrated only a limb, and only for its value. We must first say that since sanctity takes effect on the limb, it spreads to the whole animal for its value; then, since the whole animal is sacred for its value, bodily sanctity also takes effect on it.
  17. Resolve it from his own ruling — Rava’s ruling shows that bodily sanctity certainly takes effect.
  18. For Rava said: If one consecrates a male animal — specifically a male ram, because Rava is discussing a burnt offering. A female is not fit for a burnt offering, so bodily sanctity could not take effect on it.
  19. For its value — if he consecrates it to be sold to fund a burnt offering, bodily sanctity takes effect. He cannot sell it, because the animal itself is fit for a burnt offering and must be offered. Here too, since according to Rabbi Yosei sanctity spreads from the limb to the whole animal, bodily sanctity may also take effect.
  20. There he consecrated the whole animal — so only one step of ‘since’ is needed.
  21. If one consecrates a limb, what is the law about shearing? — there is no question about making the animal work: that is forbidden because it weakens the consecrated limb.
  22. When it belongs to him and another person — a non-Jew. A firstborn animal owned jointly with a non-Jew may be shorn. Perhaps here too, since the animal is partly non-sacred and partly consecrated, shearing is permitted.
  23. There, in the case of a firstborn animal — no sanctity takes effect at all, even on the Jew’s share, because partnership with a non-Jew exempts it from firstborn sanctity. Here, sanctity does take effect on the consecrated limb.
  24. He cannot consecrate it — because a non-Jew has a share in it.
  25. If one consecrates its hide — what is the law about making the animal work? There is no question about shearing, which does not weaken the hide; work, however, does weaken it.
  26. Because it weakens the fetus — and here too, it diminishes the hide.
  27. By rabbinic law — but the question is whether it is prohibited by Torah law and whether one would receive lashes for it.
  28. It is a peace offering, and its fetus is unconsecrated — He consecrated a pregnant animal but excluded its fetus. Everyone agrees that the fetus is not consecrated.
  29. According to the view that the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated when they are born — That is, someone consecrated an animal, and it then conceived. The question follows the view that its offspring become consecrated at birth, so the fetus is not yet consecrated. If he slaughters the mother in the Temple courtyard, is the fetus considered an unconsecrated animal brought into the courtyard, making him liable, since he did not consecrate it, or not?
Tosafot on Temurah 11b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Rav Hisda holds that a tereifa cannot survive, while Rava holds that it can — In the first chapter of Bekhorot (3a), concerning an animal owned in partnership with a gentile, their positions are reversed: Rav Hisda holds that a tereifa can survive. This is one of the Talmud’s reversed discussions. We find a similar reversal in the dispute between Abaye and Rava about expressions that clearly indicate one’s intent, in Nedarim (5b) and Nazir (62a). Still, Rava’s position here needs examination: in Yevamot (36a), he says that one waits twelve months to determine whether an animal is a tereifa.
  2. There, bodily sanctity did not attach to it — Rashi explains that this is because he holds that partnership with a gentile exempts an animal from firstborn status. But Bekhorot (3b) says this even according to the view that such partnership does not exempt it. Thus, ‘sanctity did not attach to it’ means that it cannot be offered as a sacrifice.
  3. She is a peace offering, her fetus is non-sacred, and she was slaughtered inside — The question is whether the fetus is prohibited as non-sacred meat slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. It seems this can be resolved from the earlier case of one who slaughtered a sin offering and found a live, four-month-old fetus inside it: that case implies that the fetus is not treated as non-sacred meat in the Temple courtyard.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 11.