Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 134:15

קבעה נדרה

Thus, the defined ones are not [fit]. Yet why so? even granted that he offered the burnt-offering below, let it be transmuted into a sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the owners were not specified, the answer given above obviously no longer applies.');">¹²</span> And should you answer, This does not agree with R'Joshua - can you say so? Surely we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh. M.) ; cur. edd. 'Come and hear'.');">¹³</span> If a woman declared, I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to her statutory obligation.');">¹⁴</span> and she bore a male child, she must bring two pairs, one for her vow, and one for her statutory obligation. When she gives them to the priest, the priest must offer three above and one below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering cannot be vowed. Hence the additional pair are both burnt-offerings, which makes three in all. These naturally must be offered above the red line.');">¹⁵</span> If he did not do thus, but offered two above and two below, not having consulted her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why she brought two pairs. Thus he thought that both pairs were statutory obligations.');">¹⁶</span> she must bring another bird and offer it above, [if both were] of the same species.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If both pairs were turtle-doves or young pigeons.');">¹⁷</span> But if they were of two species,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One pair were turtle-doves, and the other pair were young pigeons.');">¹⁸</span> she must bring two [birds].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One bird of one pair has become unfit, and the pair must be completed with a bird of the same species. Since we do not know which bird actually became unfit, she must bring another two, viz., a turtle-dove and a pigeon.');">¹⁹</span> If she defined her vow, she must bring another three birds [and offer them] above [the line], [if both were] of the same species; [if they were] of two species she must bring four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she vowed, she declared which birds she would bring, but subsequently forgot which she had vowed. Hence when she came to fulfil her vow, she needed two pairs for the vow alone, viz., a pair of turtle-doves and a pair of pigeons, to cover both contingencies, and in addition one pair of either on account of her statutory obligation, i.e., three pairs in all. She, however, had brought only two pairs of which the first was offered for her statutory obligation, while the second was left for her vow, and of that one bird became unfit. Therefore she now owes one bird of the same species to replace the unfit one, and a pair of the other species, in case it was the other species that she had vowed. But if the two pairs which she had brought were of different species, she must now bring four birds, all for burnt-offerings, because we do not know which species was offered second for the vow, and it is that species which must be completed. She cannot simply bring a pair of one species, for she does not know whether she owes one turtle-dove and two pigeons, or vice versa. Therefore she must bring two turtle-doves and two pigeons and declare: 'Let one of these, of the species which I vowed, replace the one that became unfit, and let the second of that pair be another votive offering. And let the second pair cover the doubt of my definite declaration.'');">²⁰</span> If she fixed [the time of] her vow,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 134:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.