Temurah 19

Chapter 19

א או דילמא כל אותה קדושה אינו מוסיף חומש

1 Or perhaps, all [dedications] of the same holiness do not require the addition of a fifth?1 And if you will say that since this [other] body [animal] remains in the same holiness, there is no addition of a fifth, then if [th owner] obtained atonement through [a guilt-offering] and the first [automatically] was transformed into a burnt-offering,2

ב ואם תימצא לומר הדין גוף אחד כיון דבאותה קדושה קאים מוסיף חומש אלא נתכפר באחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו כי מוסיף חומש באותו הגוף באותה קדושה אבל בקדושה אחרת לא או דילמא כיון דאותו הגוף הוא מוסיף חומש תיקו

2 what is the ruling? [Do we say that] one does not add a fifth only in the case of the same body possessing the same holiness, but where there is another holiness,3 it is not so? Or, perhaps, since it the same body,4 one is not required to add a fifth? - Let it remain undecided.

ג בעי רמי בר חמא מקדיש מוסיף חומש או מכפר מוסיף חומש אמר רבא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו מקדיש ולא מתכפר

3 Rami B'Hama inquired: Is the consecrator required to add a fifth [when redeeming], or is the one who is atoned for required to add a fifth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the rule is that only the owner adds a fifth in redeeming but not a stranger. Now if one set aside an offering on behalf of one's neighbour and it became blemished, who is considered the owner in respect of adding a fifth? Is the consecrator considered the owner and therefore the person for whom atonement is made does not require to add a fifth, as he is regarded as a stranger, or is the person for whom atonement is made considered the owner?');">5 - Said Raba: Scripture says, And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house:6 'He that sanctified', but not the person who is atoned for. Rami B'Hama inquired: Can a consecrator effect an exchange, or the one for whom atonement is obtained? - Said Raba: [Obviously the person for whom atonement is made has power of effecting exchange, for if only the consecrator has power of effecting exchange],7

ד בעי רמי בר חמא מקדיש עושה תמורה או מתכפר עושה תמורה אמר רבא אם כן מצינו ציבור ושותפין עושין תמורה כגון דשוו שליח לאקדושי

4 then we find that a congregation or partners have power of effecting exchange when, e.g. , they charge an agent to dedicate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it becomes a private offering to which exchange is applicable, and we have learnt that a congregation or partners are not competent to effect an exchange. Hence we can deduce from this that we go by the person for whom atonement is made, and in the case of a congregation or partners it is the congregation or partners who are making the exchange and consequently in this ease no exchange will be effected.');">8 And moreover R'Nahman reported: Huna informed me: It has been taught, Scripture says: And of his offering unto the Lord for his separation, beside that his hand shall get.9 Now is the offering of a nazirite according to his pecuniary means?10 How then are we to explain this?

ה ועוד דאמר רב נחמן אמר רב הונא תנא (במדבר ו, כא) קרבנו לה' על נזרו מלבד אשר תשיג ידו וכי נזיר נידון בהשג יד הא כיצד קרבנו לה' על נזרו שהפריש משלו מלבד אשר תשיג ידו שהפרישו לו אחרים

5 The words, 'His offering unto the Lord for his separation' refer to where he is able to set aside [the prescribed offering] from his own [means]. The words, 'Beside that his hand shall get refer to where others set aside [the prescribed offering].11 For what practical ruling?12 Shall I say with reference to atonement?13

ו למאי הילכתא אילימא לענין כפרה פשיטא דמכפר ליה אלא לענין תמורה והכי קאמר אף כשהפרישו לו אחרים עושה תמורה שמע מינה בתר מתכפר אזלינן

6 Surely it is obvious that he obtains atonement [with another sacrifice] seeing that they give it to him as a gift! Then must you not say that it is with reference to making exchange, and [the Baraitha above] means this: [Just as when he set aside an offering from his own means only he alone has power of effecting exchange],14 so if others set aside [an offering] on his behalf he alone can effect exchange?15 Deduce therefore from here that we go by the person for whom atonement is made!16 - No.

ז לא לענין תמורה ודקא קשיא לך מתנה דקא יהבין ליה אי לאו דרבי רחמנא (במדבר ו, כא) מלבד אשר תשיג ידו הוה אמינא גזירת הכתוב הוא קרבנו מדידיה הוא דמכפר מדאחרים לא קמ"ל

7 One can still maintain that [the Baraitha above] refers to atonement, and as to your difficulty, do not [the others who set aside the offering] give it to him as a present? Had the Divine Law not included this in the text 'beside that his hand shall get', I might have thought that it is a Divine decree that [the nazirite] can obtain atonement only with an offering brought from his own means but not from that [set apart] by others, [although it is given to him as a gift]. The text ['beside that etc.'] therefore informs us [that it is not so].

ח מאי הוי עלה תא שמע דאמר ר' אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן מקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה

8 is the decision in the matter? - Come and hear: For R'Abbuha reported in the name of R'Johanan: He who dedicates [and wishes to redeem his dedication] must add a fifth. The exchange of one for whose atonement [an animal is dedicated] is sacred. If one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain] for [the untithed grain] of his neighbour the right of disposal belongs to him [who separates].17

ט תורם משלו על של אחרים טובת הנאה שלו מ"ט אמר קרא (דברים כו, יב) את כל מעשר תבואתך ונתת וגו'

9 What is the reason? Scripture says: All the tithes of thine increase. and hast given it, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 12. Thus a person who gives and separates the tithes has the right to give them to the priest he chooses, and the privilege is not in the hands of the person on whose behalf the grain is tithed. We see, however, from R. Abbuha that the person for whom atonement is made can effect exchange and this is the answer to Rami b. Hama's query above.');">18

י <big>מתני׳</big> אין ממירין לא אברין בעוברין ולא עוברין באברים ולא עוברין ואברים בשלימים ולא שלימים בהן

10 <big>MISHNAH: </big>WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR [DEDICATED] EMBRYOS,19

יא רבי יוסי אומר ממירין אברים בשלימים אבל לא שלימים בהן א"ר יוסי והלא במוקדשין האומר רגלה של זו עולה כולה עולה אף כשיאמר רגלה של זו תחת זו תהא כולה תמורה תחתיה

11 NOR WITH EMBRYOS [OF HULLIN] FOR [DEDICATED] LIMBS;20 NOR WITH EMBRYOS AND LIMBS [OF HULLIN] FOR WHOLE [DEDICATED ANIMALS];21 NOR WITH WHOLE [ANIMALS OF HULLIN] FOR THEM. R'JOSE SAYS: WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR WHOLE [DEDICATED ANIMALS],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one says: 'Let the foot of this animal of hullin be exchanged for this dedicated animal', the exchange takes effect in regard to the limb and it spreads to the entire animal. Thus the whole animal becomes sacred and is offered up.');">22

יב <big>גמ׳</big> אתמר בר פדא אמר אין קדושה חלה על עוברין ורבי יוחנן אמר קדושה חלה על עוברין ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן הקדיש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה בה מתכפר רצה בוולדה מתכפר

12 BUT NOT WITH WHOLE [ANIMALS OF HULLIN] FOR THEM.23 SAID R'JOSE: IS IT NOT THE CASE IN RESPECT OF DEDICATIONS,24 THAT IF ONE SAYS: 'THIS FOOT SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, THE WHOLE [ANIMAL] BECOMES A BURNT-OFFERING? SIMILARLY, IF ONE SAYS, 'THIS FOOT SHALL BE INSTEAD OF THIS [WHOLE DEDICATED ANIMAL]', THE WHOLE [ANIMAL] SHOULD BECOME A SUBSTITUTE IN ITS PLACE. <big>GEMARA: </big>It was stated: Bar Padda says, Dedication has no effect on embryos,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one dedicates an embryo inside an animal, it is not holy to be offered up, and if he offered it up when it was born without a special dedication from its birth, he brings hullin to the Temple court. If, therefore, he separates a pregnant sin-offering, we do not consider it as a case of two sin-offerings set aside for security, for the embryo is sanctified by virtue of its mother and not on its own account, and therefore is regarded as the offspring of a sin-offering which is left to die. Similarly, as regards the matter of dedication, the embryo is regarded as the offspring of a dedication and not as a separate dedication.');">25 whereas R'Johanan says: Dedication has effect on embryos.

יג וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בהך קמייתא התם הוא דאקדשיה

13 And R'Johanan26 follows the opinion he expressed elsewhere. For R'Johanan said: If one dedicates a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes, he may obtain atonement through it [the mother], and if he wishes, he may obtain atonement through its offspring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we say that the offspring of sin-offerings is left to die only in the case where one set apart a sin-offering which became pregnant and gave birth, it being a Sinaitic law that the offspring in such circumstances is condemned to die (v. infra 21b) . But where he set apart a pregnant sin-offering, the embryo is regarded as a different animal and therefore holiness attaches to it independently of its mother. We regard this as a case of one who sets apart two sin-offerings for security in which case he can obtain pardon with whichever one he chooses, the other being left to pasture. We thus see that holiness attaches to an embryo and no special dedication is required after its birth.');">27 [And both statements of R'Johanan] are necessary. For if he had made only the first statement,28 [I might have said] that here, where he dedicated

Previous Chapter Next Chapter