Temurah 49
אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן
<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Omitting with Wilna Gaon: 'But why does not holiness attach to them', cf. cur. edd. Since this clause refers even to the offspring of dedications, why should not at least the holiness of their mother rest on them (Rashi) .');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושין
for if we were to think that they are holy from [the time of their existence] inside their mother, why should not holiness attach to them [tumtum etc.] since they receive the holiness of their mother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the time when they begin to develop little by little in the inside of their mother, they should be holy.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
דאי ס"ד ממעי אמן הן קדושין אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן
But in fact this proves that the offspring of dedications become holy at birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the whole Mishnah will be the opinion of R. Simeon.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים
A firstling shal not sanctify.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the text (Lev. XXVII, 26) : Howbeit the firstling among the beasts which is born as a firstling unto the Lord, no man shall sanctify rufc it; the Heb. denotes equally firstborn and firstling of an animal.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ולדי קדשים ממעי אמן הן קדושים
The text therefore adds: 'No man shall sanctify it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text therefore will mean this: Howbeit the bekor i.e., the firstborn of a man, that which is born a firstling unto the Lord, he shall not sanctify it, implying that the firstborn may not sanctify a firstling for another dedication.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ת"ל
The text therefore states: 'Among the beasts' [saying in effect]: My concern is with a beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I refer here only to the firstling of a beast which 'bekor' here denotes, and thus state that no man may consecrate it for another dedication.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ועדיין אני אומר
The text therefore states: 'As firstling to the Lord', implying, when it becomes 'a firstling to the Lord'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at birth, after the sanctification by the womb, but as long as it is in the inside of the animal it is hullin.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
בבהמה בבהמה עסקתי
The text therefore states: 'Howbeit', thus intimating a division.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the regular force of the word ('howbeit') . The division here indicated is between the case of a firstling and that of other dedications. Only in the case of a firstling may one make dedication prior to the animal becoming a legal firstling but not in the case of other dedications in the inside of an animal, for since the mother is holy, with every portion which forms in the womb the offspring receives the holiness of the mother.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יכול לא יקדישנו בבטן
Consequently we see that [this Tanna] holds that the young of dedicated [animals] are holy [from the time] that they commence to exist in the inside of their mothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the view of the Tanna in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ת"ל
Said R'Amram to R'Shesheth: If one says of a firstling at the moment that the greater part of it was emerging from the womb:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still inside the animal, at the time when the holiness of a firstling takes effect.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יכול אף ולדי כל הקדשים כן
or a legal firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the holiness of a firstling rests on all firstlings that leave the womb. Which holiness is more stringent so as to have a prior effect on it and cancel the other?');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ת"ל
Is it a burnt-offering, since every portion which came forth [from the womb] is wholly burnt on the altar, or is it a legal firstling as every portion which came forth [from the womb] retains its original sanctity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of a firstling.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אלמא ס"ל
holiness and therefore has effect on it, o is it a legal firstling, since its holiness commences from the womb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The holiness of a firstling takes effect on all firstlings from the time of leaving the womb without a special dedication.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
או בכור הוי דכל פורתא ופורתא דקא נפיק במילתיה הוא
is it leket or is it free?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which takes effect hefker or leket? Now there can be no question that if he made the produce free for everyone before the greater part of it was plucked, there would be no need to carry out the law of leket, since leket only applies to what is looked after and eaten.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
שכן קדושה חיילא עליה או דלמא
or is it ownerless, since poor and rich acquire possession thereof? - And Abaye explained: What is this query?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As both leket and hefker came together, surely leket is the more important law to observe.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
אמר על הלקט
SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING AND IT [THE ANIMAL ITSELF] SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING, HIS WORDS STAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young becomes a burnt-offering and its mother a peace. offering, since the holiness of the young animal came first.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
עם נשירת רובו יהא הפקר לקט הוי או הפקר הוי
BUT IF HE SAYS [FIRST]: IT [THE ANIMAL] SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This implies the dedication of the animal and what is inside it. Its offspring is therefore important enough to be dedicated independently and it is like one dedicating two animals for peace-offerings.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
או דלמא הפקר הוי שכן זוכין בו עניים ועשירים
[ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Meir holds that we accept the first statement. And here the principle of holiness commencing only at birth does not apply, as this only refers to a case where the animal became pregnant subsequent to dedication, but where one dedicates a pregnant animal, the embryo is considered apart from its mother and is able to receive holiness on its own account.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
דברי מי שומעים
BUT IF AFTER HE ALREADY SAID [INTENTIONALLY]: THIS SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING, HE CHANGES HIS MIND AND SAYS: ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, [ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His latter statement being of no consequence, since he meant at first that both should be peace-offerings.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים דבריו קיימים
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Said R'Johanan: If one set aside a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes he can obtain atonement through it [the animal itself], and if he wishes, he can obtain atonement through its young.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We only apply the principle of the young of a sin-offering being condemned to die in a case where one dedicated an animal and it became pregnant afterwards, but where he dedicated a pregnant sin-offering, the embryo can receive holiness independently, apart from its mother, and thus he can procure atonement through whichever animal he chooses.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד זבחי שלמים דברי ר"מ
What is the reason? - R'Johanan holds that if he left over [the young]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he says that the offspring should be hullin and the mother shall be a sin-offering. Therefore even where he did not leave over the embryo, i.e., did not declare it hullin, its holiness is still not derived through its mother.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
ואם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה הרי זו ולדה שלמים
The case therefore is like one who sets aside two sin-offerings for security's sake, where if he wishes, he can obtain atonement through it [the one animal], and if he wishes, through the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sin-offering which he does not use is condemned to pasture.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
מ"ט
Should it not say: 'Its young is a peace-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is holy on its own account, and not because of its mother. The Mishnah therefore in saying: It is regarded as the young of a peace-offering, implies that its holiness is due to its mother and therefore in the case also where one set aside a pregnant sin-offering, it is regarded as the offspring of a sin-offering, the law of which is that it is condemned to die.');"><sup>41</sup></span>
דהוה ליה כמפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות רצה מתכפר בה רצה מתכפר בחבירתה
Recite [as follows]: 'Its young is a peace-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see therefore that the reading in our Mishnah is not a correct one, and no question can be raised from it.');"><sup>44</sup></span>
מותיב רבי אלעזר
An objection was raised: If one says to his [pregnant] bondwoman, 'Be thou a slave but thy child shall be free', if she was pregnant she obtains [freedom] in his behalf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the child goes out free; v. Git. 23b.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד שלמים
Now this creates no difficulty if you hold that if one left over [the young]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the mother and its young are not regarded as two separate entities.');"><sup>46</sup></span>
ואי סלקא דעתך שיירו משוייר הרי זה ולד שלמים
the action is not valid, and that an embryo is considered as the thigh of its mother; for this reason she obtains [freedom] in his behalf, since it is on a par with the case of one who freed a half of his slave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the slave acquires possession of that half, and so here the bondwoman is privileged to secure the freedom of her child.');"><sup>47</sup></span>