Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 12, 2019 | 讬状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

Temurah 24

If someone designates an animal just in case something happens to the other, is it the same laws as one whose animal got lost and another is brought in place of it? Rabbi Hoshaya says that they are different. With which tannaitic opinion about loss does he hold by? The gemara deals with Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion regarding a sin offering that got blemished and was redeemed and another one was bought – even though the first was redeemed it is still considered sanctified to the extent that if the other animal was sacrificed before聽the blemished one was slaughtered, it ahs to be left to die. The gemara brings a braita regarding skinning an animal from the legs and connects it to this opinion of Rabbi Elazar. How can one avoid having to give the firstborn animal to the priest? The mishna brings some other cases where one declares聽that the animal in utero will be desginated for a particular sacrifice and the gemara tries to determine exactly what case the mishna was referring to.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 讘转专讬 住讚专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


But in a case where one designates two distinct sets of money, such as an additional set of money as a guarantee, Rabbi Shimon does not state that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that even in this case, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讞讘讬专转讛 专讜注讛


Rabbi Hoshaya says: In the case of one who designates two animals as sin offerings as a guarantee, so that if one animal is lost he will achieve atonement with the other animal, he achieves atonement with one of them, and the other is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then sold, and the money received from its sale is used to purchase communal gift offerings.


讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讻讗讬讘讜讚 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Hoshaya state this halakha? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is unnecessary. The Gemara explains: Now that in a case where one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, the Rabbis say that it is not considered like the lost animal, and it is therefore left to graze, is it necessary to state that in a case where one designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the second animal is left to graze?


讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


Rather, you will say that Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say that there are five sin offerings that are left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another animal? If so, even in a case where one designated an additional animal as a guarantee, once the owner has achieved atonement the remaining animal is left to die.


讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讗讬讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗


Rather, Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Hoshaya is teaching that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal is left to die, that applies only in a case where one designated the second animal instead of a lost sin offering. But in a case where one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the remaining offering is left to die.


转谞谉 讛诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诪讜讻专讛 讜诪讘讬讗 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘讛 砖谞讬讛 拽讜讚诐 砖谞砖讞讟讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 转诪讜转 砖讻讘专 讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a challenge to this explanation: We learned in the mishna (22b): In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and brings another sin offering in its stead with the money received in its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die, as it is considered an animal whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬


The Gemara continues: It enters your mind to say that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that if one achieved atonement with one sin offering, the remaining animal is left to die. Likewise, even if the remaining animal is no longer sacred, it is left to die if the owner achieved atonement with the other animal. And if so, even if one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the remaining animal should also be left to die. Consequently, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


诇讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讜讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


The Gemara responds: No, perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who said that there are five sin offerings left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Since Rabbi Shimon does not qualify this statement, he evidently maintains that the remaining sin offering is always left to die, even when it is no longer sacred. If so, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya can be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


转谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 诪转讛


The Gemara poses a challenge to the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya: We learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): With regard to the lottery involving the two goats brought on Yom Kippur, if after the lots were drawn for both goats, the scapegoat died, another pair of goats is brought and lots are drawn for the second pair. With regard to the two goats selected to be the sin offering, i.e., the remaining goat from the first pair and the goat selected from the second, one is sacrificed and the second goat shall graze until it becomes blemished, after which it is sold and the money received is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is because a communal sin offering is not left to die. One may infer from the mishna that under similar circumstances, the sin offering of an individual is left to die.


讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转讻驻专 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 诪转讻驻专 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬讞讬讚 诪转讛


The Gemara continues: And as the mishna does not specify which of the two goats is brought as the sin offering, Rav says that living animals are not rejected. In other words, the sin offering from the first pair is not disqualified on account of the death of the first scapegoat. And therefore, when he achieves atonement, he may achieve atonement even with the second goat of the first pair. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And the other goat that was selected as the sin offering from the second pair is like one that was initially consecrated as a guarantee, as it was not consecrated to replace a lost offering. And yet the mishna teaches that in a comparable case involving the sin offering of an individual, it is left to die. This apparently contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Hoshaya.


专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉


The Gemara responds: Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: It is a mitzva to sacrifice the first offering that was designated. Consequently, when the second sin offering is consecrated, it is already known that it will not be sacrificed. It is therefore considered like an animal designated instead of one that was lost. But in a case where one initially designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, he is permitted to achieve atonement with either animal ab initio. Therefore, the one that is not sacrificed is left to graze.


转谞讬 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讝讬专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗讘讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 诇专讘谞谉 转专注讛 讗讘讚讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 诇专讘谞谉 诪转讛 诇专讘讬 专讜注讛


搂 With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, Rav Shimi bar Ziri taught the following baraita before Rav Pappa: In a case where a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated a sin offering in its stead, and one found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it shall be left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, then according to the Rabbis the first sin offering is left to die, and according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to graze.


拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 专讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 讚诇专讘谞谉 诪转讛 诇专讘讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rav Pappa said to Rav Shimi bar Ziri: This cannot be correct, due to an a fortiori inference: And what, if in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner designated an animal in its stead, where the Rabbis say that the offering that is not sacrificed is left to graze, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says it is left to die, then in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner achieved atonement with another animal, where according to the Rabbis the remaining animal is left to die, is it not all the more so true that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to die?


讗诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 诇专讘谞谉 专讜注讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪转讛


Rather, teach the baraita in this manner: If a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated an animal in its stead, and the owner found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it is left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, all agree that it is left to die.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and must bring another sin offering with the money received from its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die. Although it was sold and rendered non-sacred, its status is that of a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 讘讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉


The Sages taught: One may not flay the skin of an animal from its feet on a Festival. Although it is permitted to slaughter and skin an animal on a Festival, one may not do so in such a manner to retain the hide intact to enable it to function as a vessel, e.g., a water skin. Similarly, one may not flay a firstborn kosher animal from its feet even on a weekday, and even if the animal is blemished, nor may one flay from the feet disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed, as flaying from the feet is considered degrading.


讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗


The Gemara asks: Granted, everyone agrees that one may not flay an animal from its feet on a Festival, as one who does so exerts effort that is not fit for the Festival. But with regard to a firstborn offering, who is the tanna who taught that flaying from its feet is prohibited?


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘讻讜专 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讻讛谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专


Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it becomes blemished. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 32b) that Beit Shammai say: An Israelite may not be granted a portion of a blemished firstborn animal along with a priest. Just as Beit Shammai prohibit an Israelite from partaking of even a blemished firstborn animal, they prohibit flaying the skin of a firstborn animal from its feet.


驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讞转 转诪讬诪讛 讜讗讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转诪讬诪讛 转拽专讘 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转驻讚讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to disqualified consecrated animals, who is the tanna who taught that one may not flay them from their feet? Rav 岣sda says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: If there were two sin offerings before him, where one was designated as a guarantee for the other should it become lost or disqualified, and one was unblemished and one became blemished after it was designated, then the unblemished animal shall be sacrificed and the blemished animal shall be redeemed.


谞砖讞讟讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 讗住讜专讛


The baraita continues: If the blemished animal was slaughtered after it was redeemed, and this occurred before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled upon the altar, then the meat of the blemished animal is permitted. But if it was slaughtered after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the blemished animal, as it has the status of a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讘拽讚讬专讛 讜谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 讬讜爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛


Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even if the meat of the blemished animal is already cooking in the pot, and the blood of the unblemished sin offering was then sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the meat of the blemished animal, and it goes to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is considered a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits the meat of a disqualified sin offering that was redeemed and slaughtered, he likewise prohibits one from flaying it from its feet.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讜拽诪讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


The Gemara objects: And let Rav 岣sda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Why does Rav 岣sda establish the prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet specifically in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Presumably, just as Beit Shammai prohibit flaying a firstborn from its feet, they also prohibit one from doing so to disqualified consecrated animals.


讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讚拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪专讞诐 讗讘诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗


The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Beit Shammai said that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it is blemished, they said that only with regard to a firstborn, whose sanctity is attained from the womb, i.e., from birth. But with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold that they retain their sanctity after they become blemished and are redeemed.


讜诇讜拽诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara objects from the other angle: But let Rav 岣sda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Presumably, just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits one from flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet, he also prohibits one from doing so to firstborn animals.


讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讜诇讬 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讘讻讜专 诇讗


The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said that the sanctity of a blemished consecrated animal remains even if it was already redeemed and is cooking in the pot, he said this only with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, whose sanctity is strong enough to apply to the redemption money paid for these animals. But in the case of a blemished firstborn animal, which cannot be redeemed, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold that it retains its sanctity even after it is blemished.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 讜谞砖拽诇讬谉 讘诇讬讟专讗 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讜讝讘讬谉


The Gemara objects: But does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not hold in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed may be slaughtered in the butchers鈥 market and sold in the butchers鈥 market, where there are many buyers, and their meat is weighed by the litra, like non-sacred meat. Apparently, once you permit the sale of disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat, one may increase the sale price and sell it at a greater profit. Since the Temple treasury stands to gain from such a sale, it is permitted to handle the disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat. Here, too, as an animal that may be flayed from its feet would be sold for a higher price, the flaying from the feet of disqualified consecrated animals should be permitted, as the Temple treasury stands to gain from that sale.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘注讜专 驻讜讙诐 讘讘砖专


Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says in response: That which improves the hide damages the meat. If one is careful to remove the entire hide without cutting it, he will inevitably cut away some of the meat, thereby lowering the proceeds from the meat. Consequently, the ability to flay a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet does not increase its overall sale price.


讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐


In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Avin another reason it is prohibited to flay disqualified consecrated animals from their feet: It is because it appears as though one is performing labor with sacrificial animals, which is prohibited.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛诐 注讚专讬诐 注讚专讬诐


Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: The prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet is a rabbinic decree, lest one delay slaughtering the animals until he finds someone to purchase the hide, and in doing so, he will raise many flocks of disqualified consecrated animals, which will likely lead to a transgression of the prohibitions of shearing or working disqualified consecrated animals.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转


MISHNA: How may one employ artifice to circumvent the obligation to give the firstborn to the priest and utilize the animal for a different offering that he is obligated to bring? The owner approaches an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn while that animal was still pregnant, and says: That which is in the womb of this animal, if it is male, is designated as a burnt offering. In that case, if the animal gave birth to a male, it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering. And in a case where he says: If it is female, it is designated as a peace offering, if the animal gave birth to a female, it will be sacrificed as a peace offering.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讬诪讬谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 诪讘讻专转 砖讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖讘诪注讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗诐 讝讻专 注讜诇讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐


In a case where the owner says: If it is male it is designated as a burnt offering, and if it is female it is designated as a peace offering, and the animal gave birth to a male and a female, the male will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the female will be sacrificed as a peace offering. If the animal gave birth to two males, one of them will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a burnt offering, who will sacrifice it as a burnt offering; and the money received from its sale is non-sacred.


讗诐 讝讻专 注讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讝讻专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛谞拽讘讛 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 讬诪讻专 诇讞讬讬讘讬 注讜诇讛 讜讚诪讬讜 讞讜诇讬谉


If the animal gave birth to two females, one of them will be sacrificed as a peace offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a peace offering, who will sacrifice it as a peace offering, and the money received from its sale is non-sacred. If the animal gave birth to a tumtum, whose gender is unknown, or a hermaphrodite, which has both male and female sexual organs, both of which are unfit for sacrifice, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They are not imbued with sanctity.


讬诇讚讛 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗讞转 诪讛诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转讬诪讻专 诇讞讬讬讘讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讚诪讬讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛谉


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says: It is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn before it left the womb and entered into the air of the world, as it has not yet become sanctified as a firstborn. The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna: A person says about an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn: That which is in the womb of this animal, if it is male, is designated as a burnt offering. This indicates that as a burnt offering, yes, one may designate it in this manner, as the sanctity of a burnt offering is more stringent than that of a firstborn but as a peace offering, no. And yet you say that one may entirely abrogate the animal鈥檚 sanctity by inflicting a blemish upon it before it is born.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 转谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讛 砖讘诪注讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讚诪爪讬转 诪驻拽注转 诇讬讛 诪拽讚讜砖转讛


Rav Yehuda could have said to you: That statement, that one is permitted to consecrate a firstborn fetus only with a more stringent sanctity, applies when the Temple is standing and offerings are sacrificed upon the altar. By contrast, when I say that one is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn and abrogate the firstborn鈥檚 sanctity, I am referring to today, when offerings are not able to be sacrificed, and therefore the animal cannot be consumed until it becomes blemished.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛


The Gemara asks: If Rav Yehuda is referring only to today, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it obvious? The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: Let us issue a decree against inflicting a blemish on a firstborn fetus, lest most of the fetus鈥檚 head emerge from the womb, which is when the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect, and then one inflicts a blemish upon the animal. That would constitute the unlawful infliction of a blemish upon a sacred animal. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that such a decree was not issued.


讗讬 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝专 讚诇诪讗 谞驻讬拽 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜拽砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that indeed, a decree should be issued prohibiting inflicting a blemish on a fetus due to that concern. The Gemara explains: Even so, inflicting the blemish on the fetus is preferable to leaving it alone, despite that concern, as otherwise one might come to transgress the prohibitions against shearing the firstborn or working with it. It is prohibited to work or shear a firstborn, even if it is blemished. If the firstborn is born blemished, it may be slaughtered and eaten immediately. By contrast, if it is unblemished, then one must wait for it to become blemished, and there is a concern that one might work or shear the animal in the meantime.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讬转讬专讗 诪讚讗转讬 讘讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛


搂 The latter clause of the mishna teaches that in a case where the owner of an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn says: If it is female, it is designated as a peace offering, then if the animal gave birth to a female, it will be sacrificed as a peace offering. The Gemara asks: Does a female animal become consecrated with firstborn status, such that the owner must designate the fetus as a peace offering in order to circumvent the obligation of the firstborn? The sanctity of the firstborn takes effect only upon male animals. The Gemara answers: The latter clause of the mishna comes to discuss the offspring of an animal consecrated as a sin offering. Since the offspring of a sin offering is put to death, the owner may wish to employ artifice to circumvent the sanctity of the mother by consecrating the fetus with a different sanctity.


讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 谞拽讘讛 诪讬 拽讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讘讻讜专讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讬讗 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal gave birth to two males, one of them will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a burnt offering, who will sacrifice it as a burnt offering; and the money received from its sale is non-sacred. The Sages say: If the animal that gave birth to two males was consecrated as a sin offering, then it is understandable that the newborn animal which is consecrated to be a burnt offering should be a burnt offering. But with regard to the other, let it retain the sanctity of its mother. Why does the mishna rule that the money received from its sale is non-sacred? The Gemara answers: In the last clause of the mishna, we come to the case of a non-sacred animal that is about to give birth to its firstborn.


讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专讬 讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖 讛讬讗讱 讚讗拽讚讬砖 注讜诇讛 诇讬讛讚专 注讜诇讛 讗讬讚讱 谞讛讜讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They are not imbued with sanctity. This indicates that they are not imbued with sanctity in any case, even if they are the offspring of a consecrated animal.


讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜壮



Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 24

讗讘诇 讘转专讬 住讚专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


But in a case where one designates two distinct sets of money, such as an additional set of money as a guarantee, Rabbi Shimon does not state that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that even in this case, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讞讘讬专转讛 专讜注讛


Rabbi Hoshaya says: In the case of one who designates two animals as sin offerings as a guarantee, so that if one animal is lost he will achieve atonement with the other animal, he achieves atonement with one of them, and the other is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then sold, and the money received from its sale is used to purchase communal gift offerings.


讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讻讗讬讘讜讚 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Hoshaya state this halakha? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is unnecessary. The Gemara explains: Now that in a case where one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, the Rabbis say that it is not considered like the lost animal, and it is therefore left to graze, is it necessary to state that in a case where one designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the second animal is left to graze?


讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


Rather, you will say that Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say that there are five sin offerings that are left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another animal? If so, even in a case where one designated an additional animal as a guarantee, once the owner has achieved atonement the remaining animal is left to die.


讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讗讬讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗


Rather, Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Hoshaya is teaching that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal is left to die, that applies only in a case where one designated the second animal instead of a lost sin offering. But in a case where one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the remaining offering is left to die.


转谞谉 讛诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诪讜讻专讛 讜诪讘讬讗 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘讛 砖谞讬讛 拽讜讚诐 砖谞砖讞讟讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 转诪讜转 砖讻讘专 讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a challenge to this explanation: We learned in the mishna (22b): In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and brings another sin offering in its stead with the money received in its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die, as it is considered an animal whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬


The Gemara continues: It enters your mind to say that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that if one achieved atonement with one sin offering, the remaining animal is left to die. Likewise, even if the remaining animal is no longer sacred, it is left to die if the owner achieved atonement with the other animal. And if so, even if one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the remaining animal should also be left to die. Consequently, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


诇讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讜讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转


The Gemara responds: No, perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who said that there are five sin offerings left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Since Rabbi Shimon does not qualify this statement, he evidently maintains that the remaining sin offering is always left to die, even when it is no longer sacred. If so, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya can be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


转谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 诪转讛


The Gemara poses a challenge to the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya: We learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): With regard to the lottery involving the two goats brought on Yom Kippur, if after the lots were drawn for both goats, the scapegoat died, another pair of goats is brought and lots are drawn for the second pair. With regard to the two goats selected to be the sin offering, i.e., the remaining goat from the first pair and the goat selected from the second, one is sacrificed and the second goat shall graze until it becomes blemished, after which it is sold and the money received is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is because a communal sin offering is not left to die. One may infer from the mishna that under similar circumstances, the sin offering of an individual is left to die.


讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转讻驻专 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 诪转讻驻专 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬讞讬讚 诪转讛


The Gemara continues: And as the mishna does not specify which of the two goats is brought as the sin offering, Rav says that living animals are not rejected. In other words, the sin offering from the first pair is not disqualified on account of the death of the first scapegoat. And therefore, when he achieves atonement, he may achieve atonement even with the second goat of the first pair. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And the other goat that was selected as the sin offering from the second pair is like one that was initially consecrated as a guarantee, as it was not consecrated to replace a lost offering. And yet the mishna teaches that in a comparable case involving the sin offering of an individual, it is left to die. This apparently contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Hoshaya.


专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉


The Gemara responds: Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: It is a mitzva to sacrifice the first offering that was designated. Consequently, when the second sin offering is consecrated, it is already known that it will not be sacrificed. It is therefore considered like an animal designated instead of one that was lost. But in a case where one initially designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, he is permitted to achieve atonement with either animal ab initio. Therefore, the one that is not sacrificed is left to graze.


转谞讬 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讝讬专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗讘讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 诇专讘谞谉 转专注讛 讗讘讚讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 诇专讘谞谉 诪转讛 诇专讘讬 专讜注讛


搂 With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, Rav Shimi bar Ziri taught the following baraita before Rav Pappa: In a case where a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated a sin offering in its stead, and one found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it shall be left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, then according to the Rabbis the first sin offering is left to die, and according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to graze.


拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 专讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 讚诇专讘谞谉 诪转讛 诇专讘讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rav Pappa said to Rav Shimi bar Ziri: This cannot be correct, due to an a fortiori inference: And what, if in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner designated an animal in its stead, where the Rabbis say that the offering that is not sacrificed is left to graze, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says it is left to die, then in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner achieved atonement with another animal, where according to the Rabbis the remaining animal is left to die, is it not all the more so true that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to die?


讗诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇专讘讬 诪转讛 诇专讘谞谉 专讜注讛 讘砖注转 讻驻专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪转讛


Rather, teach the baraita in this manner: If a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated an animal in its stead, and the owner found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it is left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, all agree that it is left to die.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and must bring another sin offering with the money received from its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die. Although it was sold and rendered non-sacred, its status is that of a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 讘讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉


The Sages taught: One may not flay the skin of an animal from its feet on a Festival. Although it is permitted to slaughter and skin an animal on a Festival, one may not do so in such a manner to retain the hide intact to enable it to function as a vessel, e.g., a water skin. Similarly, one may not flay a firstborn kosher animal from its feet even on a weekday, and even if the animal is blemished, nor may one flay from the feet disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed, as flaying from the feet is considered degrading.


讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗


The Gemara asks: Granted, everyone agrees that one may not flay an animal from its feet on a Festival, as one who does so exerts effort that is not fit for the Festival. But with regard to a firstborn offering, who is the tanna who taught that flaying from its feet is prohibited?


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘讻讜专 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讻讛谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专


Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it becomes blemished. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 32b) that Beit Shammai say: An Israelite may not be granted a portion of a blemished firstborn animal along with a priest. Just as Beit Shammai prohibit an Israelite from partaking of even a blemished firstborn animal, they prohibit flaying the skin of a firstborn animal from its feet.


驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗讞转 转诪讬诪讛 讜讗讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转诪讬诪讛 转拽专讘 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转驻讚讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to disqualified consecrated animals, who is the tanna who taught that one may not flay them from their feet? Rav 岣sda says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: If there were two sin offerings before him, where one was designated as a guarantee for the other should it become lost or disqualified, and one was unblemished and one became blemished after it was designated, then the unblemished animal shall be sacrificed and the blemished animal shall be redeemed.


谞砖讞讟讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 讗住讜专讛


The baraita continues: If the blemished animal was slaughtered after it was redeemed, and this occurred before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled upon the altar, then the meat of the blemished animal is permitted. But if it was slaughtered after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the blemished animal, as it has the status of a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讘拽讚讬专讛 讜谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 砖诇 转诪讬诪讛 讬讜爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛


Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even if the meat of the blemished animal is already cooking in the pot, and the blood of the unblemished sin offering was then sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the meat of the blemished animal, and it goes to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is considered a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits the meat of a disqualified sin offering that was redeemed and slaughtered, he likewise prohibits one from flaying it from its feet.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讜拽诪讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


The Gemara objects: And let Rav 岣sda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Why does Rav 岣sda establish the prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet specifically in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Presumably, just as Beit Shammai prohibit flaying a firstborn from its feet, they also prohibit one from doing so to disqualified consecrated animals.


讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讘讻讜专 讚拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪专讞诐 讗讘诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗


The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Beit Shammai said that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it is blemished, they said that only with regard to a firstborn, whose sanctity is attained from the womb, i.e., from birth. But with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold that they retain their sanctity after they become blemished and are redeemed.


讜诇讜拽诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara objects from the other angle: But let Rav 岣sda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Presumably, just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits one from flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet, he also prohibits one from doing so to firstborn animals.


讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讜诇讬 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讘讻讜专 诇讗


The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said that the sanctity of a blemished consecrated animal remains even if it was already redeemed and is cooking in the pot, he said this only with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, whose sanctity is strong enough to apply to the redemption money paid for these animals. But in the case of a blemished firstborn animal, which cannot be redeemed, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold that it retains its sanctity even after it is blemished.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 讜谞砖拽诇讬谉 讘诇讬讟专讗 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讜讝讘讬谉


The Gemara objects: But does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not hold in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed may be slaughtered in the butchers鈥 market and sold in the butchers鈥 market, where there are many buyers, and their meat is weighed by the litra, like non-sacred meat. Apparently, once you permit the sale of disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat, one may increase the sale price and sell it at a greater profit. Since the Temple treasury stands to gain from such a sale, it is permitted to handle the disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat. Here, too, as an animal that may be flayed from its feet would be sold for a higher price, the flaying from the feet of disqualified consecrated animals should be permitted, as the Temple treasury stands to gain from that sale.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘注讜专 驻讜讙诐 讘讘砖专


Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says in response: That which improves the hide damages the meat. If one is careful to remove the entire hide without cutting it, he will inevitably cut away some of the meat, thereby lowering the proceeds from the meat. Consequently, the ability to flay a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet does not increase its overall sale price.


讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐


In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Avin another reason it is prohibited to flay disqualified consecrated animals from their feet: It is because it appears as though one is performing labor with sacrificial animals, which is prohibited.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛诐 注讚专讬诐 注讚专讬诐


Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: The prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet is a rabbinic decree, lest one delay slaughtering the animals until he finds someone to purchase the hide, and in doing so, he will raise many flocks of disqualified consecrated animals, which will likely lead to a transgression of the prohibitions of shearing or working disqualified consecrated animals.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转


MISHNA: How may one employ artifice to circumvent the obligation to give the firstborn to the priest and utilize the animal for a different offering that he is obligated to bring? The owner approaches an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn while that animal was still pregnant, and says: That which is in the womb of this animal, if it is male, is designated as a burnt offering. In that case, if the animal gave birth to a male, it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering. And in a case where he says: If it is female, it is designated as a peace offering, if the animal gave birth to a female, it will be sacrificed as a peace offering.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讬诪讬谉 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 诪讘讻专转 砖讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖讘诪注讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 讗诐 讝讻专 注讜诇讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐


In a case where the owner says: If it is male it is designated as a burnt offering, and if it is female it is designated as a peace offering, and the animal gave birth to a male and a female, the male will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the female will be sacrificed as a peace offering. If the animal gave birth to two males, one of them will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a burnt offering, who will sacrifice it as a burnt offering; and the money received from its sale is non-sacred.


讗诐 讝讻专 注讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讝讻专 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛谞拽讘讛 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 讬诪讻专 诇讞讬讬讘讬 注讜诇讛 讜讚诪讬讜 讞讜诇讬谉


If the animal gave birth to two females, one of them will be sacrificed as a peace offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a peace offering, who will sacrifice it as a peace offering, and the money received from its sale is non-sacred. If the animal gave birth to a tumtum, whose gender is unknown, or a hermaphrodite, which has both male and female sexual organs, both of which are unfit for sacrifice, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They are not imbued with sanctity.


讬诇讚讛 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗讞转 诪讛诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转讬诪讻专 诇讞讬讬讘讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讚诪讬讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛谉


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says: It is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn before it left the womb and entered into the air of the world, as it has not yet become sanctified as a firstborn. The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna: A person says about an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn: That which is in the womb of this animal, if it is male, is designated as a burnt offering. This indicates that as a burnt offering, yes, one may designate it in this manner, as the sanctity of a burnt offering is more stringent than that of a firstborn but as a peace offering, no. And yet you say that one may entirely abrogate the animal鈥檚 sanctity by inflicting a blemish upon it before it is born.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 转谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讛 砖讘诪注讬讛 砖诇 讝讜 注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讚诪爪讬转 诪驻拽注转 诇讬讛 诪拽讚讜砖转讛


Rav Yehuda could have said to you: That statement, that one is permitted to consecrate a firstborn fetus only with a more stringent sanctity, applies when the Temple is standing and offerings are sacrificed upon the altar. By contrast, when I say that one is permitted to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn and abrogate the firstborn鈥檚 sanctity, I am referring to today, when offerings are not able to be sacrificed, and therefore the animal cannot be consumed until it becomes blemished.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛


The Gemara asks: If Rav Yehuda is referring only to today, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it obvious? The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: Let us issue a decree against inflicting a blemish on a firstborn fetus, lest most of the fetus鈥檚 head emerge from the womb, which is when the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect, and then one inflicts a blemish upon the animal. That would constitute the unlawful infliction of a blemish upon a sacred animal. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that such a decree was not issued.


讗讬 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讙讝专 讚诇诪讗 谞驻讬拽 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜拽砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that indeed, a decree should be issued prohibiting inflicting a blemish on a fetus due to that concern. The Gemara explains: Even so, inflicting the blemish on the fetus is preferable to leaving it alone, despite that concern, as otherwise one might come to transgress the prohibitions against shearing the firstborn or working with it. It is prohibited to work or shear a firstborn, even if it is blemished. If the firstborn is born blemished, it may be slaughtered and eaten immediately. By contrast, if it is unblemished, then one must wait for it to become blemished, and there is a concern that one might work or shear the animal in the meantime.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讬转讬专讗 诪讚讗转讬 讘讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛


搂 The latter clause of the mishna teaches that in a case where the owner of an animal that is going to give birth to its firstborn says: If it is female, it is designated as a peace offering, then if the animal gave birth to a female, it will be sacrificed as a peace offering. The Gemara asks: Does a female animal become consecrated with firstborn status, such that the owner must designate the fetus as a peace offering in order to circumvent the obligation of the firstborn? The sanctity of the firstborn takes effect only upon male animals. The Gemara answers: The latter clause of the mishna comes to discuss the offspring of an animal consecrated as a sin offering. Since the offspring of a sin offering is put to death, the owner may wish to employ artifice to circumvent the sanctity of the mother by consecrating the fetus with a different sanctity.


讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 谞拽讘讛 诪讬 拽讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讘讻讜专讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讬讗 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal gave birth to two males, one of them will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the second will be sold to those obligated to bring a burnt offering, who will sacrifice it as a burnt offering; and the money received from its sale is non-sacred. The Sages say: If the animal that gave birth to two males was consecrated as a sin offering, then it is understandable that the newborn animal which is consecrated to be a burnt offering should be a burnt offering. But with regard to the other, let it retain the sanctity of its mother. Why does the mishna rule that the money received from its sale is non-sacred? The Gemara answers: In the last clause of the mishna, we come to the case of a non-sacred animal that is about to give birth to its firstborn.


讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专讬 讗讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖 讛讬讗讱 讚讗拽讚讬砖 注讜诇讛 诇讬讛讚专 注讜诇讛 讗讬讚讱 谞讛讜讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They are not imbued with sanctity. This indicates that they are not imbued with sanctity in any case, even if they are the offspring of a consecrated animal.


讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜壮



Scroll To Top