Temurah 20

Chapter 20

א לעוברה גופיה אבל הכא דאקדשיה לאימיה הא בכלל אימיה לא קדוש
1 the embryo by itself, a dedication has effect on it, but there, where he dedicated the mother, it [the embryo] is included [in the dedication of the mother], and therefore it [the embryo] is not holy on its own account.
ב ואי אשמעינן בתרייתא התם הוא דאקדיש לה וכל דאית בה אבל הכא דאקדשיה ליה כיון דליתיה אבראי לא קדיש צריכא
2 And if he made only the second statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one set apart a pregnant sin-offering etc. as stated above.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג לישנא אחרינא מאי קמ"ל אם שיירו משוייר ועובר לאו ירך אמו הוא ותרתי למה לי
3 [I might have said] that there he dedicated it [the mother] and al connected with it [the embryo], but here where he dedicated it [the embryo], since it is not [emerged] outside, it is not holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring a special dedication when it emerges from the inside of its mother.');"><sup>2</sup></span> [Both statements of R'Johanan] are therefore necessary. Another version: What does [R'Johanan] inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where one dedicates a sin-offering etc.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד צריכא דאי אתמר בהא משום דאימיה חזיא לגופיה מגו דנחתא קדושה לה נחתא נמי לולד אבל אידך לא קמ"ל הדא
4 That if one left over [the embryo]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For another kind of holiness, v. infra 19a.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה ואי אתמר בהא משום דקא מפרש קדושה על (האם) הולד אבל ההיא לא צריכא
5 , his act is valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if one says: 'This shall be a sin-offering and its embryo a burnt-offering', his words are valid. Or, if he says: 'The mother shall be a sin-offering and its embryo hullin', it is hullin. Lit., 'it is left over'.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו יתיב ר' זירא וקאמר להא שמעתא איתיביה ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא כיצד מערימין על הבכור המבכרת שהיתה מעוברת אומר מה שבמעיה של זו עולה ילדה זכר הרי זו עולה אלמא קדוש עובר
6 , and that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Bar Padda, however, an embryo is not considered something apart, and where one dedicated the mother and left over the embryo for another kind of holiness, it does not receive holiness and is regarded as an offspring from a sin-offering which is left to die. And if one says that the embryo should be hullin his words are nugatory. According to the authority who holds that an embryo inside a dedicated animal is holy, holiness attaches immediately, while according to the other authority, holiness only commences when the embryo is born.');"><sup>6</sup></span> But what need is there for the two statements [of R'Johanan]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can we not infer this from the other case mentioned by R. Johanan, when he says that dedication has an effect on an embryo, thus teaching us that the animal and its embryo are considered as independent on one another in respect of dedication?');"><sup>7</sup></span> - [Both] are necessary. For if the statement had been made in connection with this case only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one separates a sin-offering.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ז אמר ליה כי מתניא ההיא בקדושת דמים מי אלימא קדושת דמים דקא מפקעא ליה מן הבכורה
7 [I might have said] that there, where the mother herself is fit [for dedication], since holines attached to it [the mother], it also attached to the embryo. But in the other case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one dedicates an embryo.');"><sup>9</sup></span> [I might have said] that it was not so.
ח אמר ליה אין והתנן כל קדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדישן ונפדו חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות טעמא דלאחר שנפדו דחייבין אבל קודם שנפדו פטורין [אלמא] דאלימא קדושת דמים דמפקע ליה מבכורה
8 [R'Johanan] therefore informs us [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That holiness rests on an embryo.');"><sup>10</sup></span> And if R'Johanan had stated the law only in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning where one dedicates an embryo.');"><sup>11</sup></span> [I might have said] that there the reason was because he expressly dedicated the embryo, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one separates a sin-offering.');"><sup>12</sup></span> the case is otherwise. [Both statements of R'Johanan are therefore] necessary.
ט איתיביה האומר מה שבמעיה של זו עולה מותרת בגיזה ואסורה בעבודה משום כחוש עובר שבה אמר ליה הא נמי קדושת דמים
9 R'Zera was once sitting and repeating this tradition [of Bar [Padda]. R'Jeremiah raised an objection to R'Zera.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 24b.');"><sup>13</sup></span> What device does one adopt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To evade the duty of giving a firstling to the priest, so as thus to derive the benefit for himself.');"><sup>14</sup></span> in connection with a firstling?
י ומי אלימא קדושת דמים דאסירא ליה בעבודה אמר ליה אין והתנן יוצאין לחולין ליגזז וליעבד טעמא משום דנפדו הא קודם שנפדו אסורין בעבודה אלמא קדושת דמים אסורין ליה בעבודה
10 If a pregnant animal was giving birth for the first time, one can say: 'Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall become a burnt-offering'. If no the animal gives birth to a male it is a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He carries out his obligation if he is required to bring a burnt-offering, for the holiness of a firstling only commences when it leaves the womb of its mother. Consequently the dedication for a burnt-offering preceded the holiness of a firstling.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Consequently we see that an embryo is holy on its own account!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the opinion of Bar Padda who says that an embryo possesses no holiness on its own account.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - He [R'Zera] replied to him: This was taught with reference to a consecration for its value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he sells it and buys a burnt-offering for the money. But the embryo itself is not consecrated as such and is sold unblemished.');"><sup>17</sup></span> But is a consecration for its value strong enough to release from the holiness of a firstling? - Yes.
יא איתיביה אין ממירין לא אברין בעוברין ולא עוברין באברין אימורי הוא דלא מימר הא מיקדש קדשי
11 And we have learnt likewise: All dedications which have received a permanent blemish prior to their dedication and were redeemed, are subject to the law of the firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are female animals and gave birth for the first time after their redemption.');"><sup>18</sup></span> and the priestly gifts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 33a.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יב אמר ליה בולדי קדשים הוא דקדישי וקיימי
12 Now the reason why they are subject to the law of the firstling is because they were redeemed, but if they were not redeemed, they would be exempt from the law of the firstling. Consequently we see that a consecration for its value is strong enough to release the holiness of a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since a permanent blemish was prior to the consecration, the consecration at the outset was only for the value.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג אי ולד קדשים במעי אמן הוא דלא עבדין הא אבראי עבדין והא תניא אין הולד עושה תמורה
13 He raised an objection: If one says, 'Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall be a burnt-offering', [ mother] may be shorn for its wool but must not be worked, because the embryo within is thereby weakened!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For working with the mother enfeebles the embryo, Tosef. III. Consequently we see that holiness has effect on an embryo, unlike the view of Bar Padda above.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - He said to him: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage just cited.');"><sup>22</sup></span> too it is a case of consecration for its value.
יד הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר הולד עושה תמורה
14 But is a consecration f its value strong enough to forbid [shearing and work of an animal]? - He replied to him: Yes.
טו אי ר' יהודה תמורה הוא דלא עבדי הא מקדש קדשי הא"ר יהודה אברין לא קדשי (אמר) הכא במאי עסקינן באבר שהנשמה תלויה בו
15 And we have learnt likewise: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage is the second clause of the Mishnah cited above: All dedications where a permanent blemish, etc., the latter clause therefore says that they i.e., these blemished dedications etc.');"><sup>23</sup></span> become hullin as regards shearing and working.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is permitted to shear and work them.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טז איתיביה מקדישין אברין ועוברין אבל לא ממירין הכא נמי בולדי קדשים
16 Now the reason is because they were redeemed, but before they were redeemed they must not be worked. Consequently we see that a consecration for its value makes it forbidden to work [the animal]. He [R'Jeremiah] raised an objection to him [R'Zera].
יז אי בולדי קדשים מאי מקדישין הא קדישי וקיימי
17 Our Mishnah says: WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR [DEDICATED] EMBRYOS, NOR WITH EMBRYOS FOR LIMBS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah goes on to say: NOR WITH WHOLE ANIMALS [OF HULLIN] FOR DEDICATED EMBRYOS.');"><sup>25</sup></span> Now it says that one has no power to exchange with them [the embryos],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in connection with exchanging, Scripture says 'beast' but not an embryo.');"><sup>26</sup></span> but they [the embryos] can indeed become holy!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if embryos cannot become holy, it is obvious that one has no power to exchange whole animals of holy with them, since they are hullin.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - He [R'Zera] replied to him: [Our Mishnah] is dealing with dedicated offspring which are already holy. If we are dealing with dedicated offspring, it is only in the inside of their mother that they do not effect exchange. We infer then that outside [their mother] they do effect exchange. But have we not learnt: One cannot effect exchange with the offspring of a dedicated animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Born after its mother's dedication, and the status of one exchanged with the young is not altered. We must then be dealing with a case where one consecrated directly an embryo, which is regarded as a first dedication. Hence we see that dedication has effect on an embryo, unlike the opinion of Bar Padda.');"><sup>28</sup></span> - [The Mishnah above] will represent the opinion of R'Judah who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 11a, 12a, 14a.');"><sup>29</sup></span> that an animal's offspring effects exchange. If [th first part of our Mishnah above] is the opinion of R'Judah, it is only exchange which cannot be effected [with limbs],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of hullin for whole dedicated animals, so that holiness should spread to the entire animal the limbs of which are being substituted.');"><sup>30</sup></span> but they [limbs] are indeed dedicated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One can dedicate limbs, so that if one consecrated a limb of an animal, holiness spreads to the entire animal. For the first Tanna of the Mishnah must share this opinion, since R. Jose, his disputant in the Mishnah, retorts: IS IT NOT THE CASE WITH REFERENCE TO DEDICATIONS etc., thus implying that the first Tanna agrees with him that if one dedicated a limb the whole animal becomes holy, and it is R. Simeon who opposes R. Jose later in the Baraitha, saying that at the beginning the consecration of one limb makes the whole animal a burnt-offering, but the case of exchanging is different, as it has no effect on limbs.');"><sup>31</sup></span> But has not R'Judah stated: Limbs do not become holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Later in the Baraitha, R. Judah says that holiness does not spread to the whole animal where their limbs are dedicated.');"><sup>32</sup></span> - The case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where we deduce from the Mishnah that the entire animal becomes holy if one limb is dedicated.');"><sup>33</sup></span> is where he dedicated a limb the removal of which results in death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on which the soul depends'; e.g., if he dedicated a foot from the joint upwards, the removal of which would render the animal trefah (v. Glos.) . Here, even R. Judah, the Baraitha says later, agrees that in such circumstances the whole animal becomes sacred.');"><sup>34</sup></span> He [R'Jeremiah] raised an objection to him [R'Zera]: One can dedicate limbs and embryos but one has no power to exchange [them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 15a. We therefore see that dedication has an effect upon embryos, unlike the opinion of Bar Padda.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the Mishnah just quoted.');"><sup>36</sup></span> also we are dealing with offspring of dedications. If the case is that offspring of dedications, why does the Baraitha say above: 'one can dedicate', for are they not already holy? -