Commentary for Temurah 22:65

למ"ד ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושין מי הוי חולין בעזרה או לא

no holiness rested on it at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of a firstling not applying in this instance.');">⁴⁷</span> but here, holiness rested on it [the limb]. Another version: There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the firstling.');">⁴⁸</span> he has not the power to dedicate it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the gentile has a share in the firstling.');">⁴⁹</span> whereas here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he dedicates a limb of an animal.');">⁵⁰</span> he has the power to dedicate[the rest of the animal]. Abaye inquired of Rabbah: If one dedicated the skin of an animal, what of working [the animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no question about shearing, as the skin is not weakened thereby, whereas working the animal does weaken the skin. The inquiry can be even according to R. Jose, for although if one dedicated a foot the whole animal becomes holy, the reason may be because a foot can be offered up, unlike the skin (sh. Mek) .');">⁵¹</span> - Come and hear: If one says, 'Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall be a burnt-offering', shearing is permitted, but work [with it] is forbidden on account of the weakening of the embryo within!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here too there is a weakening of the skin and therefore work should be forbidden.');">⁵²</span> - He replied to him: When [the Baraitha just quoted] states 'but work with it is forbidden', it means Rabbinically.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas our inquiry here as regards the dedication of the skin is whether it is forbidden Scripturally, so as to incur the penalty of lashes.');">⁵³</span> If so, the shearing too should be forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically, in the case of the embryo.');">⁵⁴</span> - He said to him: Work [with the embryo] which weakens it, the Rabbis prohibited, but shearing, the Rabbis did not prohibit. Abaye inquired of R'Joseph: If it [the mother] is a peace-offering and its embryo is hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one dedicated a pregnant animal without its embryo, when according to all the authorities concerned, the embryo is not holy.');">⁵⁵</span> and he slaughtered [the mother] within [the Temple court], what is the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the embryo forbidden because he slaughtered hullin in the Temple court. Tosaf. suggests that this inquiry can be solved from the Baraitha, supra 11a, where it says: 'If one slaughtered a sin-offering and found a four months' old embryo alive', implying that there is no prohibition here of slaughtering hullin in the Temple court. Sh. Mek. however, comments in this connection that there may be a difference between an embryo which has not completed its months of pregnancy, as in the case of the Baraitha, and an embryo which has completed its months of pregnancy, which is the case of our inquiry here.');">⁵⁶</span> According to the one who holds that offspring of dedications are holy at birth and not before, have we here a case of [slaughtering] hullin in the Temple court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he did not dedicate the embryo, for he dedicated the animal before its pregnancy and therefore the embryo remains hullin until its birth.');">⁵⁷</span> or not?

Explore commentary for Temurah 22:65. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.