Commentary for Temurah 37:30

הכי נמי מסתברא דבבהמה מעוברת עסקינן מדקתני היא וולדותיה שמע מיניה

R'Eliezer, however, says: The [animal] itself is offered as a Passover sacrifice. Now here the mother is dedicated for its value and R'Eliezer says that its young is offered as a Passover sacrifice and we do not apply to it the same rule as to its mother? - Said Rabina: We are dealing here with a case where he sets aside a pregnant animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Passover sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> R'Eliezer holds the view of R'Johanan who says that if he left over [the embryo for a different dedication], the act is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one dedicates a pregnant animal and leaves over the embryo for another dedication, this is regarded as valid; consequently we see that they are considered two separate bodies. Therefore even if he did not leave over the dedication of the embryo, it is not considered part of the body of the mother, and consequently its consecration as a Passover sacrifice has effect.');">¹⁷</span> for an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother. Therefore it is only the mother [being a female] which receives no bodily consecration, whereas its embryo receives bodily consecration. Said Mar Zutra the son of R'Mari to Rabina: It also stands to reason that we are dealing [in the above Baraitha] with the case of a pregnant animal, since the Baraitha says: 'It and its offspring'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that both were in existence at the time of dedication, since the Baraitha does not say: If one sets aside a female animal for its Passover sacrifice let it go to pasture; if it gave birth to a male let it go to pasture, etc. This would have implied that it gave birth later, after the dedication.');">¹⁸</span> This is proved.

Explore commentary for Temurah 37:30. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.