Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 31 for kids: Eggs and Offerings

תמורה ל״א

🥚 This daf asks whether the young of a tereifa animal may be offered on the altar. It then compares animals set aside for altar offerings with property set aside for Temple upkeep.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 31a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 31b 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 31

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 31 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 31a, in English Tab translation (15)
  1. According to the one who says, etc. — This is disputed in the discussion of tereifot in Chullin 57b: one opinion says a tereifa can give birth, and another says it cannot.
  2. Both factors cause it — The dispute cannot be about whether a fetus is considered part of its mother unless she became pregnant before becoming a tereifa. In that case, according to the opinion that a fetus is part of its mother, the disqualifying injury occurred in its own body. But if she became a tereifa before becoming pregnant, the fetus also has a permitted source, its father. The dispute must therefore concern the combined effect of a permitted and a prohibited factor.
  3. A chick — A chick hatched from the egg of a tereifa dove, which may not be offered. A fetus is not attached to its mother’s body; it hangs in an open space and develops on its own. An egg, however, remains attached to the hen’s cluster of eggs until it is complete, and develops from her body. Another explanation: The offspring grows independently after birth, so its main growth does not come from its mother. An egg grows from the hen’s body, as shown by the fact that it does not grow after it is laid. That is why the Rabbis agree that the chick is prohibited. This is the wording of the Jerusalem Talmud.
  4. Rava said to Rav Huna, etc. — Under the first explanation, this concerns the opinion that a tereifa can give birth. Under the second, it concerns the opinion that it cannot: the eggs are from the first batch, already in the hen’s cluster of eggs when she became a tereifa.
  5. A full ladle — Its precise measure is explained in Nazir 50.
  6. That came from a living person — Who subsequently died.
  7. Rabbi Eliezer deems it impure — Because the worms are part of the person’s body; it is only on this point that the Rabbis disagree with him. Another, preferred explanation: Rabbi Eliezer deems the worms impure even during the person’s lifetime, since a limb from a living person conveys impurity through contact, carrying, and being under the same roof, like a limb from a corpse, as taught in Chullin 128b. But even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the chick may be offered: it is a separate body, which was never inside the tereifa.
  8. After it rotted — The chick emerged from the egg after the egg had rotted. Once it rotted, its prohibited status ceased, for it was mere dust. The chick that emerged afterward is therefore permitted.
  9. Would it likewise be prohibited? — Yet it was stated above that eating the vetches is prohibited when the animal was designated for idolatry, but not when it was not designated.
  10. Fresh milk every morning — Throughout the animal’s life.
  11. Since it can survive — It can live on that morning’s milk for a full twenty-four hours without any other food. When that period ends, it suckles again. Thus all its growth comes from the tereifa, even if it eats other things in between.
  12. Only, whenever you desire, you may eat meat — The Sifrei of Rav’s school applies this verse to disqualified consecrated animals.
  13. Some say: ‘You shall slaughter and eat meat’ means that eating is permitted only from the time of slaughter — This excludes milk and wool, which are benefits taken while the animal is alive. But on this reading one may redeem consecrated animals to feed them to dogs: ‘and eat’ is not available to teach ‘you may eat, but not your dogs.’ Rather, the interpretation implies that feeding dogs is permitted. You may not benefit from the animal while it is alive; dogs, however, may eat it after it dies, even without slaughter. The two rulings about redeeming consecrated animals to feed dogs are opinions of different tanna’im, as explained in Chullin 102.
  14. Mishnah: Animals consecrated for Temple upkeep — At the end of the first chapter, Temurah 13a, they are excluded from the law of substitution.
  15. Piggul, leftover offerings, and impurity, etc. — These are written concerning peace offerings. Yevamot 7a explains: Peace offerings were already included among all consecrated offerings, so why were they singled out? To compare the others to them: just as peace offerings are consecrated for the altar, so too these laws apply to all offerings consecrated for the altar.
Tosafot on Temurah 31a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. According to the one who says a tereifa cannot give birth — The dispute concerns an animal that became pregnant and then became a tereifa: the Rabbis permit its offspring because they do not regard a fetus as part of its mother. But earlier, all agree that if an animal became pregnant and was then subjected to bestiality, its offspring is prohibited because both were subjected to the act. Would Rava’s ruling there disagree with the Rabbis? No. A tereifa’s disqualification depends on its life and health; when the offspring is visibly alive and healthy, we do not treat it as having become a tereifa along with its mother. Bestiality, like goring, is different: for that purpose the fetus is treated as part of its mother. This seems to make the mishna discuss different sequences of events: an animal subjected to bestiality before pregnancy, but a tereifa after pregnancy, since a tereifa cannot give birth. Yet the mishna is listing the circumstances in which offspring of animals disqualified for the altar are permitted. For a tereifa, only one sequence is possible. For an animal subjected to bestiality, two are possible, and the mishna includes it on account of the sequence in which its offspring is permitted.
  2. It grows from its own space — Rashi offers two explanations. First, a fetus is not attached to its mother’s body but hangs within her and develops on its own, whereas an egg is attached to the cluster of eggs inside the hen. Alternatively, an animal’s offspring continues to grow after birth, so its principal growth does not come from its mother. An egg, by contrast, develops inside the hen and does not grow after it is laid.
  3. A full ladle of worms from a living person who later died; Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure because it is part of his body, and the Rabbis disagree only there — Rashi adds that, in his view, Rabbi Eliezer declares the worms impure even during the person’s life, since a limb severed from a living person imparts impurity by contact, carrying, and being under the same roof. Why, then, does Nazir leave open the question of remains that decayed while a person was alive and who then died? That question may follow the Rabbis: perhaps they deem worms pure because worms are a separate creature, but would agree about decayed bodily remains. Nazir cites Rabbi Yehoshua’s distinction: a corpse has laws concerning most of a body, a quarter-kav, and decayed remains, while a living person does not. Rabbi Yehoshua can follow the Rabbis here; according to Rabbi Eliezer, if worms from a living person impart impurity, decayed remains certainly would. Rabbi Yehuda, my teacher’s brother, asks why this teaching requires a full ladle of worms when a mishna in Oholot says that Rabbi Eliezer requires only an olive-bulk, whether the worms are alive or dead. My teacher suggested that a full ladle is required specifically for worms that separated from a living person, but that still does not explain why this measure is used here.
  4. A person is called a worm — Why add that a chick develops from an egg only after the egg rots and becomes mere dust? The point is an additional argument: even if a person were not called a worm, worms from a person would still be unlike a chick from an egg.
  5. That it suckled warm milk — The same would apply if an animal ate vetches of idolatry throughout its life, so that most of its growth came from them. At first glance, it would then be prohibited even for ordinary consumption.
  6. Mishna: Altar offerings ... piggul — As explained at the end of the second chapter of Zevaḥim, why does Scripture state the penalty of excision three times for peace offerings? One mention establishes the general rule, and another addresses offerings otherwise outside that rule: just as peace offerings are consecrated for the altar, so are all offerings consecrated for the altar included. The law of eating an offering after its allotted time is linked to piggul by the shared word “iniquity,” and the law of eating while ritually impure is linked to eating after its allotted time by the shared word “desecration.”
Rashi on Temurah 31b, in English Tab translation (15)
  1. Their offspring and their milk — The rule about milk was derived above, at the end of the chapter “Everything Forbidden,” from the word “meat,” which excludes milk. As explained in Bekhorot, the rule about offspring concerns an animal conceived before its mother’s redemption and born afterward: it cannot be offered because its sanctity was set aside, yet that sanctity is too strong for redemption to take effect. If it was conceived after redemption, it is like an unconsecrated deer or gazelle and is permitted. With animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, even offspring conceived before redemption are permitted, because the animals were consecrated only for their value and their sanctity is not as stringent.
  2. Takes effect on everything — Even stones and wood.
  3. One is liable for misuse of their by-products — The Gemara explains the reason.
  4. Unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance — This includes even animals.
  5. Who is the tanna? — Who holds that even animals consecrated without specifying the altar are consecrated for Temple maintenance? It is not Rabbi Yehoshua.
  6. Their proceeds go with the rest of his property — Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified consecrations, even of animals, are for Temple maintenance. Still, an animal fit for the altar can be redeemed from the treasurer only for use on the altar; once designated for the altar, it never loses that designation.
  7. Rabbi Yehoshua says — Evidently, he holds that something fit for the altar is consecrated for the altar when no purpose is specified.
  8. This differs from Rav Adda — Identifying the mishna with Rabbi Eliezer conflicts with Rav Adda, who says that even Rabbi Eliezer holds that an animal consecrated without specification is meant for the altar. Here, Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning is that a person does not divide one vow between two kinds of consecration.
  9. A person divides his vow — The males are for burnt offerings, and the females are sold to fund burnt offerings. They cannot simply be offered as peace offerings without redemption: the owner would eat from them and thereby misuse consecrated property. He did not specify peace offerings, and having consecrated everything, he may not benefit from them.
  10. But if he consecrated his animals — Rabbi Eliezer agrees that all of them are for the altar, even if some are female, since every animal is suitable for an altar offering. The males are offered as burnt offerings; the females are sold for peace offerings, and their proceeds go toward burnt offerings. Thus the entire vow can be understood as intended for the altar.
  11. But according to the first version — Rav Adda says that Rabbi Eliezer does not divide a vow concerning a herd that is half male and half female between offering the animals themselves and offering their monetary value. He maintains this even if the owner has no other property, when the whole vow could be for the altar. Why, then, does the mishna say that the proceeds go with the rest of his property to Temple maintenance? Sometimes there is no other property.
  12. Shavings and fallen leaves — If someone consecrates a tree for Temple maintenance, using shavings cut from it is misuse of consecrated property, as is using its leaves that fall in winter as fertilizer.
  13. Milk of consecrated animals — This means milk from consecrated animals. The example of altar consecrations uses doves, while the example of Temple maintenance uses a chicken, because people do not ordinarily consecrate something fit for the altar for Temple maintenance.
  14. A female donkey — This is a noteworthy case: although it is not a kosher animal, consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on it just as on a kosher animal.
  15. By-products fit for the altar — For example, the offspring of consecrated animals.
Tosafot on Temurah 31b, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Their offspring and milk remain forbidden after redemption — Bekhorot 14a explains that the animals conceived before redemption but gave birth afterward. Had they conceived and given birth before redemption, their offspring would be offered or left to graze until blemished, depending on the view. Had they conceived after redemption, their offspring would be like those of ordinary deer and rams. Here, redemption of the mothers does not redeem the unblemished offspring in their wombs, even if the offspring are born blemished. According to the view that offspring become holy in the womb, they were already holy before redemption; according to the view that they become holy at birth, holiness takes effect then.
  2. But property consecrated for Temple maintenance may be given to craftsmen; what is the source? — Why would this need a source? What else could the money be used for, if not to pay craftsmen to maintain the Temple? My teacher explains that one might have thought it could buy only timber and stone, which remain consecrated, while wages would have to come from separately donated money because payment makes the consecrated money ordinary. The verse teaches that the money originally consecrated may itself be used to pay craftsmen.
  3. Males are sold to those needing burnt offerings — Even unblemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance must ultimately reach the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the males themselves are offered as burnt offerings: a person would not pass over an animal fit for the altar and consecrate it merely for its monetary value. Thus, in Rabbi Yehoshua’s view, unspecified consecrations are not designated for Temple maintenance.
  4. And this disagrees with Rav Adda bar Ahava — He says that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, unspecified consecrations are not inherently designated for Temple maintenance. Here the proceeds go there because a person does not divide a single vow: since the females must be sold, the males are sold too.
  5. To include wood shavings and fallen leaves — This concerns someone who consecrated a beam. If Temple treasurers bought the wood, Me’ila 14a says there is no liability for misuse of its shavings or fallen leaves. How, then, could such by-products arise from something consecrated for the altar? For example, someone might consecrate two logs for the altar fire.
  6. And liability for misuse extends to their by-products; what does this include? — The wording is difficult: it should ask, ‘What does this exclude?’
  7. Even according to the view that there is liability for misuse of by-products of altar consecrations, that applies only to by-products fit for the altar — Rashi gives offspring as an example. But offspring are holy because Scripture says ‘they shall be yours,’ not because they are by-products. Nor do we find a dispute about liability for misuse of by-products of altar consecrations, though there is one concerning Temple-maintenance property. My teacher suggests that the view intended is Ze’iri’s ruling that one is liable for misuse of blood drawn from a consecrated animal. Rav Hamnuna challenges him from the rule about milk and eggs, apparently treating blood as a by-product too. The distinction would then be that liability applies to blood fit for sprinkling, but not to milk or eggs.

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 31.