כב ותניא אמר רבי מאיר וכי מאחר שאין קדושין מהיכן מקדישין אלא אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואח"כ נטרפה הא היתה טרפה מעיקרא לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף
22 [I answer that] it [a trefah animal] is not on a par with the ca of a blemished animal. An unclean animal is forbidden to be eaten and a trefah is also forbidden to be eaten, to the exclusion of a blemished animal which is permitted to be eaten. Said Samuel: If one has dedicated a trefah, a permanent blemish is required in order to redeem it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one wishes to redeem it, for Samuel holds that it is capable of dedication as such.');"><sup>46</sup></span> Can you not prove from here that one may redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we learn (infra 31a) that one cannot redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat, but they are left to die and then buried.');"><sup>47</sup></span> - Rather say: It is dedicated in that it is left to die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is holy bodily, and even after redemption it must not be shorn or worked. And even if blemished, it is not redeemed in order to be given to the dogs to eat.');"><sup>48</sup></span> R'Oshaia however says: It is only like dedicating wood and stones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not called a dedication at all and therefore can be redeemed to be given to the dogs to eat, no permanent blemish being required to make redemption permissible.');"><sup>49</sup></span> We learnt: We must not redeem dedicated animals which became trefah because we must not redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat. The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why we must not redeem a dedicated animal that has become trefah.');"><sup>50</sup></span> is therefore because they became trefah; but if they were trefah at the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before its dedication.');"><sup>51</sup></span> we may redeem them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see that if one dedicated a trefah it can be redeemed in order to give dogs to eat, unlike the view of Samuel.');"><sup>52</sup></span> - Perhaps this Tanna [of the Mishnah] holds: Wherever [the animal] is not fit [for offering] there does not rest upon it bodily dedication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since therefore there is no holiness as such in connection with trefah, it may be redeemed.');"><sup>53</sup></span> Come and hear: R'ELEAZAR SAYS, KIL'AYIM, TREFAH, A FOETUS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF A CESAREAN SECTION, A TUMTUM AND A HERMAPHRODITE ARE NEITHER HOLY NOR CAN THEY CONFER HOLINESS. And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra on this page of the Gemara and v. notes.');"><sup>54</sup></span> Samuel said: 'They are not holy' [means] to receive holiness of an exchange.' Nor can they confer holiness' [means] to effect exchange. And it has been taught: Said Rabbi, But since they are not holy themselves, how can they confer holiness [on others]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 118, and notes.');"><sup>55</sup></span> You cannot therefore explain this except as referring to where one dedicated an animal and it afterwards became trefah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 118, and notes.');"><sup>56</sup></span> [Now the reason is because the animal was dedicated first and then it became trefah], but if it was a trefah from the beginning [before the dedication], bodily consecration would not attach to it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the view of Samuel above.');"><sup>57</sup></span>