Temurah 21

Chapter 21

א הכי קאמר מקדישין איברין וממירין בהן אבל לא ממירין [אברים] בהן ועוברים שקדשו במעי אמן אין ממירין בהן

1 What is meant is this:1 One can dedicate limbs,2 and can effect exchange for them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The limbs of the same animal permit of exchange with another animal, for the consecration of one limb renders the whole animal holy, since one cannot effect exchange for one consecrated limb. For even R. Jose in our Mishnah above only says that one has power to exchange limbs of hullin for whole dedicated animals but not the whole animal for a dedicated limb and certainly not limbs of hullin for dedicated limbs.');">3

ב בולדי קדשים במעי אמן הוא דלא עבדין תמורה הא אבראי עבדי והא תנן אין הוולדות עושין תמורה הא מני רבי יהודה היא

2 but one can effect no exchange with limbs for them [dedicated animals].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the latter part of the Mishnah quoted which says: 'But one has no power to effect exchange' informs us that one has no power to exchange limbs for whole animals, so that if e.g., one says: 'Let the limb of this animal be a substitute for this whole dedicated animal' it is not holy. This is a restriction which applies to dedications, for if one dedicated a limb, the whole animal becomes holy, whereas if one says: 'Let this limb be a substitute for this whole animal' there is no substitute.');">4 And embryos which were dedicated while they were inside their mother cannot be exchanged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the offspring of a dedicated animal, although they are holy, cannot be exchanged for an animal so long as they are inside the animal. This will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah who holds that an offspring can effect an exchange, for according to the Rabbis, even if the offspring were outside their mother's body, they could not effect an exchange.');">5 Now if the case [in the Mishnah just quoted] refers to offsprings of dedications, it is only in the inside o their mothers that they do not effect an exchange, but outside [their mother]6

ג אי רבי יהודה אברין מי קדשי הא לר' יהודה לית ליה האומר רגלה של זו עולה כולה עולה

3 they do effect exchange. But have we not learnt: Offspring [of dedicated animals] do not effect an exchange? - This7

ד אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן בדבר העושה אותה טרפה

4 is the opinion of R'Judah.8 If it is the opinion of R'Judah, then how can limbs become holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause in the Mishnah just explained above says that one can consecrate limbs and effect exchange with them, thus implying that holiness spreads to the entire animal, otherwise there could be no substitution for limbs.');">9

ה לימא כתנאי השוחט את החטאת ומצא בה בן ארבע חי קתני חדא אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה ואינה נאכלת אלא לפנים מן הקלעים ואינה נאכלת אלא ליום אחד

5 for R'Judah does not hold that if one says: 'The foot of this animal shall be a burnt-offering' the whole becomes a burnt-offering? - He replied to him: Here10 also the case11 is one of the dedication of a limb [the loss of] which renders the animal trefah.

ו ותניא אידך נאכלת לכל אדם ונאכלין בכל מקום ואינן נאכלין בעזרה מאי לאו תנאי היא דמר סבר קדושה חלה על עוברין ומר סבר אין קדושה חלה על עוברין

6 Must it be said that Tannaim differ [on that point]?12 [For it was taught:] If one13 slaughtered a sin-offering and found a four months' old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is five months old, it has finished its months of pregnancy in the case of small cattle and is not rendered permissible through the slaughtering of its mother, according to R. Meir, who holds that if an animal has concluded its normal months of pregnancy it requires a separate shechitah.');">14 [embryo] alive inside, one [Baraitha] states: It is only eaten by the males of the priesthood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the law of a sin-offering. At present we interpret the Baraitha as dealing with a case where one separates a pregnant animal. For if pregnancy followed dedication, all the authorities concerned will agree that since the consecration of the embryo was through its mother, it is regarderd as hullin, as the offspring of dedications are only holy at their birth and not while inside the animal.');">15 within the hangings of the court, and for one day [and a night];16 while another [Baraitha] taught: It is eaten by all people, it is eaten everywhere [in the Temple court] and [is eaten at all times].17

ז לא הני תנאי בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים ומר סבר ולדי קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים

7 What [does this mean]? Is it not that there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim, one Master holding that dedication has effect on embryos,18 and the other Master holding that dedication has no effect on embryos?19 - No.20

ח ואיבעית אימא חד תנא הוא חדא מהלין מתנייתא במקדיש בהמה ואח"כ נתעבדה וחדא מנהון שהקדישה מעוברת

8 These Tannaim [of the Baraitha above] differ on this point, one Tanna21 holding that the offspring of dedications are holy at birth,22

ט תניא רבי אליעזר אומר כלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין [לעשות] תמורה

9 while the other Tanna23 holds that [the offspring of dedications] are holy even in the inside of their mother. Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say: Both [Baraithas quoted above] are the teaching of one Tanna.24 One of these Baraithas25

י ותניא א"ר מאיר מאחר שאינן קדושין היאך מקדישין אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואחר כך נטרפה במקדיש ולד ויצא [דרך] דופן אלמא קדיש ולד

10 deals with a case where one dedicates an animal and then it becomes pregnant,26 and the other,27 where he dedicates it in a pregnant condition.28 We have learnt:29 R'Eliezer says, Kil'ayim,30

יא אמרי בתם במעי תמימה אפילו בר פדא נמי מודי דקדיש לא נחלקו אלא בתם במעי בעלת מום בר פדא סבר כיון דאימיה לא מקדישין קדושת הגוף הוא נמי לא קדיש ורבי יוחנן סבר הני כב' בהמות נינהו אימיה היא דלא מיקדשא אבל הוא קדוש

11 trefah31 and a foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section, a tumtum32 and a hermaphrodite do not themselves become holy nor cause holiness.33 And Samuel said: The expression, 'Do not themselves become holy' means as regards becoming a substitute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if they are hullin and were substituted for a dedicated animal, they do not become sacred; and though the law of exchange has effect on permanent blemished animals, it has no effect on these cases. This is certainly the case, that they are not holy, if one actually consecrated them.');">34 and the expression, 'Nor cause holiness' means to effect an exchange.35

יב לישנא אחרינא אבל כלאים וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס אי אתה מוצא אלא בולדי קדשים

12 And it has been taught: Said R'Meir:36 Since they37

יג וכרבי יהודה שהיה אומר הולד עושה תמורה הלין הוא דלא קדשי גופייהו אבל עוברין אחרים קדושין

13 do not become holy, how can they cause holiness?

יד אמר אביי תם במעי תמימה דברי הכל קדיש גופיה אלא כי פליגי במעי בעלת מום דבר פדא סבר כיון דאימיה נמי לא קדיש גופה איהו נמי לא קדיש אלא לדמי רבי יוחנן סבר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא ואע"ג דאימיה לא קדשה לגופה ולד מיהא קדיש לגופיה

14 You cannot find a case38 except where one dedicated an animal and then it became trefah,39 or where one dedicated an embryo40 and it was then extracted through the caesarean section. Consequently we see that an embryo can become holy [contrary to the opinion of Bar Padda above]! - To this the answer was given: As regards an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of an unblemished animal, even Bar Padda also agrees that it becomes hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Agreeing with R. Johanan, the case of consecrating an embryo and then extracting it through the caesarean section being the same as the case of an unblemished embryo in the inside of an unblemished animal.');">41 They42

טו א"ר יוסי והלא במוקדשין האומר רגלה של זו כו'

15 only differ as regards an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of a blemished animal. Bar Padda holds since the mother is not holy as such,43 it [the embryo] is also not holy, whereas R'Johanan holds: These44 are two independent animals; the mother is indeed not holy but the embryo is. Another version: But the cases of kil'ayim, tumtum and a hermaphrodite you can only explain with reference to the offspring of dedication and in accordance with the opinion of R'Judah who used to say that one can effect an exchange with an offspring [of dedications]. Now only these are not consecrated as such, but other embryos become holy, [unlike the opinion of Bar Padda]! - Said Abaye: Regarding an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of an unblemished animal, all the authorities agree that it [the embryo] is holy as such. The point at issue is with reference to an embryo in the inside of a blemished animal, Bar padda, holding that since the mother is not holy as such, except for its value, the embryo also is not holy as such [except for its value], whereas R'Johanan says: An embryo is not considered the thigh of its mother, and although its mother is not holy as such, the embryo nevertheless is holy as such. SAID R'JOSE: IS IT NOT THE CASE WITH REFERENCE TO DEDICATIONS THAT IF ONE SAYS: 'THIS FOOT SHALL BE etc.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter