תמורה כד

תמורה כד

אֲבָל בִּתְרֵי סִדְרֵי לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ רוֹעָה.

§ 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.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — הַשְׁתָּא הַמַּפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד, אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָאו כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי, לְאַחְרָיוּת מִיבַּעְיָא?!

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?

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת!

Rather, you will say that Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But didn’t 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.

אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי, כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי בְּאִיבּוּד — אֲבָל אַחְרָיוּת לָא.

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.

תְּנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, וַהֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם — מוֹכְרָהּ, וּמֵבִיא אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרְבָה שְׁנִיָּה קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — תָּמוּת, שֶׁכְּבָר כִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ.

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.

קָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת נָמֵי!

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.

לָא, דִּלְמָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כַּאֲבוּהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת.

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.

תְּנַן: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה, הָא דְּיָחִיד מֵתָה.

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.

אָמַר רַב: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּין אֵינָן נִידְחִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן מִתְכַּפֵּר, וְאִידַּךְ הָוֵה לֵיהּ אַחְרָיוּת, וְקָתָנֵי דְּיָחִיד מֵתָה!

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.

רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מִצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן.

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.

תָּנֵי רַב שִׁימִי בַּר זֵירִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: אָבְדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה — לְרַבִּי מֵתָה, לְרַבָּנַן תִּרְעֶה. אָבְדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה — לְרַבָּנַן מֵתָה, לְרַבִּי רוֹעֶה.

§ 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’im. 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.

קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה, דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן רוֹעָה, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵתָה — אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה, דִּלְרַבָּנַן מֵתָה, לְרַבִּי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

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?

אֶלָּא תָּנֵי הָכִי: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה — לְרַבִּי מֵתָה, לְרַבָּנַן רוֹעָה. בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֵתָה.

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.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳.

§ 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַרְגִּילִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ — אֵין מַרְגִּילִין בִּבְכוֹר, וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב — דְּקָא טָרַח טִירְחָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר — מַאן תְּנָא?

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?

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בְּכוֹר בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ קָאֵי, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמָּנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַבְּכוֹר.

Rav Ḥisda 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.

פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת, אַחַת תְּמִימָה וְאַחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם — תְּמִימָה תִּקְרַב, בַּעֲלַת מוּם תִּפָּדֶה.

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 Ḥisda 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.

נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — מוּתֶּרֶת; מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — אֲסוּרָה.

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.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׂר בַּעֲלַת מוּם בַּקְּדֵירָה, וְנִזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — יוֹצֵא לְבֵית הַשְׂרֵיפָה.

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.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא, לוֹקְמַהּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי!

The Gemara objects: And let Rav Ḥisda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Why does Rav Ḥisda 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.

דִּלְמָא כִּי אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — בִּבְכוֹר, דִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ מֵרֶחֶם, אֲבָל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין — לָא.

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.

וְלוֹקְמַאּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

The Gemara objects from the other angle: But let Rav Ḥisda 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.

דִּלְמָא כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — בִּפְסוּלֵי מוּקְדָּשִׁין, דְּאַלִּימִי לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנָן, אֲבָל בִּבְכוֹר — לָא.

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.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לֵית לֵיהּ הָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִיטְלִיז וְנִמְכָּרִין בָּאִיטְלִיז וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא? אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁרֵית לֵיהּ טָפֵי וְזָבֵין!

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’ market and sold in the butchers’ 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.

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: מַה שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ בָּעוֹר — פּוֹגֵם בְּבָשָׂר.

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.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה בְּקָדָשִׁים.

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.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶם עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.

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.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ וְלַד חַטָּאת.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מַעֲרִימִין עַל הַבְּכוֹר? מְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, אוֹמֵר: ״מַה שֶּׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ אִם זָכָר — עוֹלָה״, יָלְדָה זָכָר — יִקְרַב עוֹלָה, ״וְאִם נְקֵבָה — זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים״, יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים.

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.

״אִם זָכָר — עוֹלָה, וְאִם נְקֵבָה — זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים״, יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — הַזָּכָר יִקְרַב עוֹלָה, וְהַנְּקֵבָה תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — אֶחָד מֵהֶם יִקְרַב עוֹלָה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִמָּכֵר לְחַיָּיבֵי עוֹלָה, וְדָמָיו חוּלִּין.

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.

יָלְדָה שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת — אַחַת מֵהֶם תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּימָּכֵר לְחַיָּיבֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְדָמֶיהָ חוּלִּין. יָלְדָה טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן.

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’s sanctity by inflicting a blemish upon it before it is born.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיֵּצֵא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. תְּנַן: אוֹמֵר אָדָם ״מַה שֶּׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ — עוֹלָה אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ דְּמָצֵית מַפְקְעַתְּ לֵיהּ מִקְּדוּשְּׁתַהּ!

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’s 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.

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא אֲנָא — בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה.

The Gemara asks: If Rav Yehuda is referring only to today, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda’s statement is necessary, lest you say: Let us issue a decree against inflicting a blemish on a firstborn fetus, lest most of the fetus’s 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.

אִי בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִגְזַר, דִּלְמָא נָפֵיק רוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ וְקָשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא.

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.

וְאֵימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי — הָא עֲדִיפָא יַתִּירָא, מִדְּאָתֵי בֵּיהּ לִידֵי גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה.

§ 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.

אִם נְקֵבָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים — נְקֵבָה מִי קָא קָדְשָׁה בִּבְכוֹרָה? סֵיפָא אָתְיָא לִבְהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

§ 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.

יָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים כּוּ׳. אָמְרִי: אִי בְּהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, הַיְאךְ דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ עוֹלָה — לֶיהְדַּר עוֹלָה, אִידַּךְ נֶהֱוֵי בִּקְדוּשְּׁתַיהּ דְּאִימֵּיהּ! סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְבֶהֱמַת חוּלִּין.

§ 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.

יָלְדָה טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס כּוּ׳.