Temurah 49

Chapter 49

א אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן קסבר רשב"ג ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושין דאי ס"ד ממעי אמן הן קדושין אמאי אין קדושה חלה עליהן הא תפסתינהו קדושה דאימייהו אלא ש"מ ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים

1 <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) .');">1 R'Simeon B'Gamaliel holds: The offspring of dedications become holy at birth,2 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?3 But in fact this proves that the offspring of dedications become holy at birth.4 And the [following] Tanna holds that the offspring of dedications are holy from [the time of their existence] in the inside of their mother. For our Rabbis have taught: If it had been said only. 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.');">5

ב והאי תנא סבר ולדי קדשים ממעי אמן הן קדושים דת"ר אילו (לא) נאמר בכור לא יקדיש הייתי אומר בכור לא יקדיש הקדישות ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כו) איש אותו אותו אי אתה מקדיש אבל מקדיש אדם בכור הקדישות

2 I might have thought that a firstborn [of man] must not make dedications.6 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.');">7 implying that it [the firstling animal] he must not sanctify [for another dedication] but a firstborn [of man may] make dedications. But I might still have said that he [a firstborn] must not sanctify [a firstling for another dedication] but others may do so. The text therefore states: 'Among the beasts' [saying in effect]: My concern is with a beast.8 One might think that he cannot sanctify it [the firstling] even while it is in the inside of the animal [for another dedication]?

ג ועדיין אני אומר הוא לא יקדיש אבל יקדישוהו אחרים ת"ל בבהמה בבהמה עסקתי

3 The text therefore states: 'As firstling to the Lord', implying, when it becomes 'a firstling to the Lord'9 you must not sanctify it [for another dedication], but you may sanctify the firstling [for another dedication] while it is in the inside of th animal. One might have thought that the same applies to the young of all dedications?10 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.');">11

ד יכול לא יקדישנו בבטן ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כו) אשר יבוכר לה' משיבוכר לה' אי אתה מקדיש אבל אתה מקדיש בבטן

4 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.12 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:13 'Let it be a burnt-offering', is it a burnt-offering14

ה יכול אף ולדי כל הקדשים כן ת"ל אך חלק אלמא ס"ל ולדי קדשים ממעי אמן הן קדושין

5 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?');">15 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?16 Another version: Is [the firstling] a burntoffering, since this is a [stringent]17 holiness and therefore has effect on it, o is it a legal firstling, since its holiness commences from the womb?18 - He said to him: Why do you inquire?

ו א"ל רב עמרם לרב ששת אמר על הבכור עם יציאת רובו עולה עולה הוי או בכור הוי

6 Is this not identical with the inquiry of Ilfa [as follows]: If one says in connection with leket19 when the greater part [of the produce] has been plucked:20

ז עולה הוי דכל פורתא ופורתא דקא נפיק הוא כליל או בכור הוי דכל פורתא ופורתא דקא נפיק במילתיה הוא

7 Let it be hefker,21 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.');">22

ח ל"א שכן קדושה חיילא עליה או דלמא בכור הוי שכן קדושתו מרחם

8 Is it leket since its holiness is derived from heaven,23 or is it ownerless, since poor and rich acquire possession thereof? - And Abaye explained: What is this query?24 Whose word do we obey?

ט א"ל מאי תיבעי לך היינו דבעי אילפא אמר על הלקט עם נשירת רובו יהא הפקר לקט הוי או הפקר הוי

9 That of the Divine Master or of the pupil?25 Similarly here also, whose word do we obey?26 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF ONE SAYS: THE YOUNG OF THIS [PREGNANT ANIMAL]27 SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING AND IT [THE ANIMAL ITSELF] SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING, HIS WORDS STAND.28 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.');">29

י לקט הוי שכן קדושתו בידי שמים או דלמא הפקר הוי שכן זוכין בו עניים ועשירים

10 [AND THEN], AND ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING,30 [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.');">31

יא ואמר אביי מאי תיבעי ליה דברי הרב ודברי תלמיד דברי מי שומעים ה"נ דברי מי שומעים

11 THIS IS THE TEACHING OF R'MEIR'R'JOSE SAYS: IF HE INTENDED [TO SAY] THIS32 AT FIRST,33 SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MENTION BOTH KINDS [OF SACRIFICES] SIMULTANEOUSLY,34 HIS WORDS STAND;35 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.36

יב <big>מתני׳</big> האומר ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים דבריו קיימים היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד זבחי שלמים דברי ר"מ

12 <big>GEMARA: </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.');">37 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.');">38

יג א"ר יוסי אם לכן נתכוין תחלה הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות שני שמות כאחת דבריו קיימין ואם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה הרי זו ולדה שלמים

13 the act is valid,39 and an embryo is not regarded as part of the thigh of its mother. 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.40

יד <big>גמ׳</big> א"ר יוחנן הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה בה מתכפר רצה בולדה מתכפר

14 R'Eleazar raised an objection: IT SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING AND ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, [ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE- OFFERING. Now if we assume that if he left over [the young] the act is valid, why does it say: ITS YOUNG IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING?

טו מ"ט קסבר ר' יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר

15 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.');">41 - Said R'Tabla: Ask no question from this [Mishnah],42 since Rab said to the Tanna:43

טז עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא דהוה ליה כמפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות רצה מתכפר בה רצה מתכפר בחבירתה

16 Recite [as follows]: 'Its young is a peace-offering'.44

יז מותיב רבי אלעזר היא שלמים וולדה עולה הרי זה ולד שלמים ואי סלקא דעתך שיירו משוייר הרי זה ולד שלמים הרי זו שלמים בעי מיתנא

17 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.45 Now this creates no difficulty if you hold that if one left over [the young]46 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,47 and this will represent the opinion of Rabbi,48

יח אמר רב טבלא בר מינה דההיא הא אמר רב לתנא תני הרי זו שלמים

18 as it has been been taught:

יט מיתיבי האומר לשפחתו הרי את שפחה וולדך בן חורין אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו

כ אי אמרת בשלמא אם שיירו אינו משוייר עובר ירך אמו מש"ה זכתה לו והוי ליה כמשחרר חצי עבדו ומני ר' מאיר היא כדתניא

Previous Chapter Next Chapter