OPINIONS: The Gemara earlier (10a) cites an argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Bar Pada about whether a fetus becomes Kadosh while in its mother's womb. Rebbi Yochanan says that a fetus becomes Kadosh in the womb, and Bar Pada says that it does not.

The Gemara here asks that this argument seems to be the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana of one Beraisa states that when a four-month-old fetus is found in the stomach of a slaughtered Chatas, it has the status of a Chatas. The Tana of another Beraisa maintains that the fetus is Chulin. The Gemara suggests that the first Tana maintains, like Rebbi Yochanan, that a fetus in utero can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, while the second Tana maintains that it cannot become Kadosh, like Bar Pada.

The Gemara gives two answers to explain why the Machlokes Tana'im is not the same as the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Bar Pada (see Chart). According to the Gemara's second answer, both Beraisos are expressing the view of the same Tana. One Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal was made Hekdesh and then became pregnant. The other Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal became pregnant and afterwards was made Hekdesh.

When the Gemara answers that the Beraisos are expressing the view of one Tana, what is the opinion of that Tana with regard to whether a fetus can become Kadosh? Does he follow the view of Rebbi Yochanan or the view of Bar Pada?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Iy Ba'is Eima) explains that the Gemara maintains that the Tana of the Beraisos agrees with the view of Rebbi Yochanan and maintains that a fetus can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. The second Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal was first made Hekdesh and then became pregnant; in that case, the fetus is Chulin, since it was conceived only after the animal was sanctified. The fetus will become Kadosh only at the time of birth ("b'Havayasan Hen Kedoshim"). The first Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal was pregnant before it was made Hekdesh. The declaration of Hekdesh includes any fetus present at that moment.

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (Hashmatos #11) says in the name of TOSFOS that the Tana agrees with the view of Bar Pada and maintains that a fetus cannot become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. The first Beraisa (that says that the fetus is a Chatas) refers to a case in which the animal became pregnant after being proclaimed Hekdesh. The Tana maintains that the fetus of a Korban becomes Kadosh when it develops in the womb of the Kadosh animal ("bi'Me'ei Iman Hen Kedoshim"), even before it is born. The second Beraisa (that says that the fetus is Chulin) refers to a case in which the animal was pregnant before it became Hekdesh. Since the animal was made Hekdesh with the fetus, Bar Pada's rule that one cannot be Mekadesh a fetus with Kedushas ha'Guf applies.

What is the underlying argument between Rashi and the Shitah Mekubetzes?

The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Rashi maintains that the Beraisa that says that the fetus is Chulin cannot be following the view of Bar Pada. Since that Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal was pregnant before it became Kadosh, Bar Pada's rule -- that one cannot be Mekadesh a fetus -- applies (since the fetus was in the animal at the time that the owner made the animal Hekdesh). While it is true that the fetus should not be Hekdesh because of the owner's declaration of Hekdesh, it still should become Kadosh due to the fact that a fetus becomes Kadosh by virtue of being in the womb of Kodshim ("bi'Me'ei Iman Hen Kedoshim")! Because of this question, Rashi does not learn like the Shitah Mekubetzes. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara earlier (10a) cites an argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Bar Pada about whether a fetus becomes Kadosh while in its mother's womb. Rebbi Yochanan says that a fetus becomes Kadosh in the womb, and Bar Pada says that it does not.

The Gemara here asks that this argument seems to be the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana of one Beraisa states that when a four-month-old fetus is found in the stomach of a slaughtered Chatas, it has the status of a Chatas. The Tana of another Beraisa maintains that the fetus is Chulin. The Gemara suggests that the first Tana maintains, like Rebbi Yochanan, that a fetus in utero can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, while the second Tana maintains that it cannot become Kadosh, like Bar Pada.

The Gemara earlier (10a) explains that according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, when one sanctifies an animal as a Chatas and that animal happened to be pregnant at the time it was sanctified, either the mother cow or the calf may be brought as a Korban Chatas. Rashi there (10a, DH Ratzah) explains that this is because it is considered as though the owner sanctified two animals, one to be the actual Chatas and one as "Achrayus" in case anything happens to the first. If the first Beraisa here follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, then why does the same law not apply here? The fetus found inside of the mother cow should have the status of a Chatas designated for Achrayus, and it should have the status of a full-fledged Chatas! Accordingly, the Halachah should be that after its mother is offered as a Chatas, it must be left to graze until it gets a Mum, and then it may be eaten like Pesulei ha'Mukdashim!

ANSWER: TOSFOS (33a, DH Temimim) explains that a dead animal cannot be considered to be a Ba'al Mum. Since, in the case of the Beraisa here, the four-month-old fetus died after its mother was slaughtered, it cannot be left to graze until it gets a Mum. Hence, it must be treated like a full-fledged Chatas. (OLAS SHLOMO)

OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that when one declares that the leg of his animal is an Olah, the entire animal does not become an Olah. This is learned from the verse, "Kol Asher Yiten mi'Menu la'Shem Yiheyeh Kodesh" -- "anything that he will give from it to Hash-m will be Kodesh" (Vayikra 27:9), which implies "mi'Menu la'Shem" -- "from it" is Kodesh for Hash-m, but the entire animal is not Kodesh. The Beraisa then asks that perhaps it should be entirely Chulin, and it answers that it cannot be entirely Chulin because the verse concludes, "Yiheyeh Kodesh" -- "it will be Kodesh."

What is the status of such an animal? The Beraisa concludes that it should be sold to someone who needs to bring an Olah, and the money of the sale is Chulin except for the value of the leg. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah.

When the Beraisa asks that the animal should be Chulin, what does it mean to ask? Does it mean that the entire animal should be Chulin, or that only part of the animal should be Chulin?

(a) RASHI (DH Yiheyeh Kodesh) explains that the Beraisa concludes that the entire animal cannot be slaughtered and treated like Chulin, but rather it must be sold for an Olah and the money is Chulin (except for the value of the leg). Rashi's words imply that he understands that the question of the Gemara is that the entire animal should become Chulin, even the leg.

Rashi in Chulin (69b, DH Yachol), however, seems to learn differently. Rashi there writes that the Beraisa suggests that the person might be able to redeem the value of the leg from Hekdesh, and then use the rest of the animal as a normal animal of Chulin. Rashi there clearly understands that the Beraisa is asking that only the rest of the animal, but not the leg, should be Chulin.

To reconcile the words of Rashi, one may suggest that it is logical to assume that Rashi here in Temurah agrees that the leg should be redeemed in order to make it Chulin (see OLAS SHLOMO). After all, how can the Beraisa suggest that the animal has no Kedushah at all, after it just derived from "mi'Menu la'Hashem" that part of the animal is indeed Kodesh?

The CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ has difficulty with this approach to the Gemara. Kedushas Damim can be placed on almost any object. Is the Beraisa merely discussing whether the leg can have Kedushas Damim? Why would one have thought that it cannot have Kedushas Damim? It must be that the Beraisa is discussing Kedushas ha'Guf. However, if a part of the animal has Kedushas ha'Guf, then how can one redeem it? There is a rule that one cannot redeem an animal that has Kedushas ha'Guf unless it becomes blemished. How, then, can Rashi learn that the leg of the animal should be redeemed?

(b) RABEINU GERSHOM in Erchin (5a) explains that the Beraisa here is asking that perhaps the rest of the animal should be Chulin, but not the leg.

There is an obvious question on this explanation. Why should the rest of the animal not be Chulin? The owner did not sanctify the rest of the animal!

This Beraisa is also recorded in the Toras Kohanim, but the text of the Beraisa there concludes with the words, "'Yiheyeh Kodesh' -- Kulah" -- "'it will be Kodesh' -- in its entirety." The Chidushei ha'Griz explains that the Toras Kohanim, and the Gemara here as well, understand the question in the following manner. The Beraisa is asking that once we know that the leg has Kedushas ha'Guf, what is the status of the rest of the animal? On one hand, there seems to be no reason to require the animal to be offered as a Korban Olah, because the animal is Chulin. On the other hand, the rest of the animal is attached to an animal (that is, a part of an animal) that has the Kedushas ha'Guf of a Korban Olah, and thus it should not be able to be treated like Chulin.

The Beraisa answers that the verse teaches, "'Yiheyeh Kodesh' -- Kulah" -- "'it will be Kodesh' -- in its entirety." This teaches that the entire animal must be offered as a Korban Olah. How can the entire animal be offered if the rest of the animal (besides the leg) was not sanctified? The Beraisa explains that the animal is sold for the purpose of being offered as an Olah, and the money then may be treated as Chulin, with the exception of the value of the leg of the animal. This seems to be the intention of Rabeinu Gershom. (Y. MONTROSE)