Temurah 50

המשחרר חצי עבדו יצא לחירות גיטו וידו באין כאחת

If one frees a half of his slave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He possesses that half.');">¹</span>

ואי אמרת

he goes out free, since his letter of manumission and his right of possession come simultaneously.

שיירו משוייר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא אמאי זכתה לו

But if you hold that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if he freed the mother and left over the child, the latter is left over for service. Consequently we see that they are regarded as two bodies.');">²</span>

והא תניא

and that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother, why then does she [the bondwoman] obtain freedom in behalf of her child?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is like the case of a slave who receives a letter of manumission on behalf of his fellow slave, both belonging to the same master, since the possession of the slave is the possession of the master, and consequently it is considered as if really the letter had not left the hand of the master (Rashi) .');">³</span>

נראין שהעבד זוכה לקבל גט שחרור של חברו מיד רבו שאינו שלו ולא מיד רבו שלו

Has it not been taught: We approve the teaching that a slave can obtain a letter of manumission for his fellow-slave from the hand of one who is not his master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in relation to this man, the slave has the right of possession and can become an agent for the other slave.');">⁴</span>

אלא ש"מ

but not from the hand of one who is his master?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both belonging to the same master since the slave has no rights of possession.');">⁵</span>

אם שיירו אינו משוייר ותיובתא דרבי יוחנן תיובתא

You can therefore deduce from this that if one left over [the young], the act is not valid.

לימא אם שיירו משוייר תנאי היא

Shall we say this refutes R'Johanan's ruling above? - It is a refutation.

דתניא האומר לשפחתו הרי את בת חורין וולדך עבד ולדה כמוה דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי וחכמים אומרים

Must it be said that the opinion whether, if one left over the young the act is valid, is a point at issue between Tannaim?

דבריו קיימין משום שנאמר (שמות כא, ד) האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה

For it has been taught: If one says to his [pregnant] bondwoman, 'Be thou free but thy child shall be a slave', the child acquires her status [and is free].

קרא מאי תלמודא לרבנן

This is the teaching of R'Jose the Galilean; whereas the Sages say: His words stand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the child remains a slave.');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא

because it says: The wife and her children shall be her master's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 4.');">⁷</span>

(אמר) קרא לרבי יוסי הגלילי דקתני

But how is the Scriptural text interpreted in support of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text appears in reality to confirm the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, that the status of the offspring is like that of the mother.');">⁸</span>

ולדה כמוה שנאמר

- Said Raba.

האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה בזמן שהאשה לאדוניה ולדה לאדוניה

The text is adduced in support of the opinion of R'Jose the Galilean who states that, the child follows her status, since it says: 'The wife and her children shall be her master's', implying t as long as the wife belongs to her master the child is her master's, [but if the wife does not belong to her master, the child is not her master's].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');">⁹</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דרבי יוסי סבר

Now does this not mean that [these Tannaim] differ in this, that R'Jose the Galilean holds that if one left over [the young], the act is not valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is regarded as the thigh of its mother and therefore the child is free like the mother.');">¹⁰</span>

שיירו אינו משוייר ורבנן סברי

whereas the Rabbis hold that the act is valid? - R'Johanan can answer you: All the authorities concerned hold that if one left over [the young] the act is valid, and the reason here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why R. Jose the Galilean holds that the child has the status of the mother.');">¹¹</span>

משוייר

is because Scripture explicitly says: 'The wife and her children shall be her master's'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a divine decree, and not because the child is regarded as the thigh of its mother.');">¹²</span>

אמר לך ר' יוחנן

Then assuredly [the matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether if one left over the young the act is a valid one or otherwise.');">¹³</span>

דכולי עלמא שיירו משוייר

would be a point at issue] between the following Tannaim: If one killed a sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first impression was that the circumstances here are where the animal was dedicated when pregnant.');">¹⁴</span>

והכא היינו טעמא דאמר קרא האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה

and found therein a live embryo four months old, it was taught in one [Baraitha]: It is only eaten by the males of the priesthood, for one day and a night, and within the curtains.

אלא ודאי לימא כי הני תנאי דתניא

And another [Baraitha] taught: It is eaten by any man, in any place, and at all times.

השוחט את החטאת ומצא בה בן ד' חי

Now does not this mean that they differ in this, that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regards the embryo as a sin-offering.');">¹⁵</span>

תני חדא

holds that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah. And since it is regarded as a separate animal, even if he did not leave it over, holiness attaches to it in the womb (Rashi) .');">¹⁶</span>

אין נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה ואינה נאכלת אלא ליום אחד ואינה נאכלת אלא לפנים מן הקלעים

whereas the latter Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who considers the embryo as hullin.');">¹⁷</span>

ותניא אידך

holds that if one left over [the young], the act is not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah. Cur. edd. reverse; v. also Rashi.');">¹⁸</span>

נאכלת לכל אדם ונאכלת בכל מקום ונאכלת לעולם

valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not regarded as an independent animal but only as the thigh of its mother, like that of any other offspring. This holiness of the offspring, however, only commences after birth, but not as here when it is found in the inside of its mother, for we hold the opinion that the holiness of the offspring of dedicated animals commences at birth but not earlier.');">¹⁹</span>

מאי לאו תנאי דת"ק סבר

- R'Johanan can answer you: All the authorities concerned hold<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he dedicated a pregnant sin-offering.');">²⁰</span>

שיירו אינו משוייר ומר סבר

that if he left over [the young] the act is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore even if he did not leave over the young, the embryo is holy like the sin-offering.');">²¹</span>

שיירו משויר

These Tannaim, however, differ in this, one Master holding that the offspring of dedications are holy only when they emerge into existence but not earlier, whereas the other Master holds that the offspring of dedications are holy already inside their mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the embryo is regarded as a sin-offering.');">²²</span>

אמר לך רבי יוחנן

And if you prefer [another solution], I may say there is no contradiction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the two Baraithas mentioned above.');">²³</span>

דכ"ע אם שיירו משוייר והני תנאי בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר

Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which says that the embryo has the law of hullin.');">²⁴</span>

ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים ומר סבר ולדי קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים

[we are dealing) with a case where he dedicated [a sin-offering] and it subsequently became pregnant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And all the authorities concerned hold that the offspring of dedications become holy only at birth.');">²⁵</span>

ואיבעית אימא

and there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which says that the embryo has the law of a sin-offering.');">²⁶</span>

לא קשיא כאן בשהקדישה ולבסוף נתעברה כאן בשנתעברה ולבסוף הקדישה

with a case where it became pregnant and was subsequently dedicated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we hold that if he left over the young in respect of dedication, the act is valid and the young is important enough to be dedicated on its own account. These Tannaim therefore in reality do not differ at all (Rashi) .');">²⁷</span>

מתקיף לה רבא

To this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the refutation of R. Johanan from the Baraitha: If one says to a bondwoman etc. as stated above.');">²⁸</span>

ממאי דטעמא דרבי יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר דלמא היינו טעמא דר' יוחנן

Raba demurred: How do we know that the reason of R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why he says that if he set aside a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes he can obtain atonement through its mother or its young.');">²⁹</span>

דאדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש

is because if one left over [th young] the act is valid?

אמר ליה רב המנונא

perhaps the reason of R'Johanan really is that a man can obtain atonement with the increment of dedicated animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although its sanctity is derived from the mother, the young of a sin-offering is not condemned to die, since a man may obtain atonement with the increment of a consecrated animal as here, where the young is a gain to dedications, the law of a young of a sin-offering being condemned to die only applying where he refused to obtain atonement except through the mother.');">³⁰</span>

רבי אלעזר תלמידיה דרבי יוחנן ויתיב לקמיה דרבי יוחנן ולא אהדר ליה האי שינויא ואת אמרת טעמא דר' יוחנן משום דאדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש

- Said R'Hamnuna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You cannot maintain that R. Johanan's reason is not because he holds that if one left over the young the act is valid.');">³¹</span>

אם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך כו'

R'Eleazar, a pupil of R'Johanan, was in the presence of R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he quoted the Baraitha in contradiction to R. Johanan's teaching.');">³²</span>

פשיטא ולדן שלמים אלא כל אימת דבעי מימלך

and he [R'Johanan] did not give him that answer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the reason of R. Johanan's ruling was as you say, why did not R. Johanan reply that his reason was because a man may obtain atonement with the improvement of a consecrated animal?');">³³</span>

אמר רב פפא

and yet you say that the reason of the ruling of R'Johanan is because a man can obtain atonement with the increment of dedications.

לא נצרכה אלא שאמר בתוך כדי דיבור

BUT IF AFTER HE HAD ALREADY SAID [INTENTIONALLY]: THIS SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING AND HE CHANGED HIS MIND, etc. Surely this is obvious, that [its young] is regarded as the offspring of a peace-offering! For can he change his mind whenever he wishes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he cannot be allowed to change his dedications at will.');">³⁴</span>

מהו דתימא

- Said R'Papa: This clause is required only for the case where one statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., 'and its young shall be a burnt-offering'.');">³⁵</span>

תוך כדי דיבור כדיבור והאי עייוני הוא דקמעיין קמ"ל

followed the other in the same breath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,' within the time required for an utterance', i.e., as long as it takes a master to greet his pupil or a pupil his master.');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרי זו תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים הרי זו תמורת עולה דברי רבי מאיר

You might have said that two statements following each other immediately are considered as one statement and that this man was really reflecting [aloud].

אמר רבי יוסי

[The Mishnah] therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

אם לכן נתכוין תחלה הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות ב' שמות כאחת דבריו קיימים

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD, THIS ANIMAL [OF HULLIN] SHALL BE THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, THE EXCHANGE OF A PEACE-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we are dealing with a case where both the peace-offering and a burnt-offering were before him when he effected the exchange.');">³⁷</span>

ואם משאמר תמורת עולה נמלך ואמר תמורת שלמים הרי זו תמורת עולה

IT IS THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF R'MEIR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Meir maintains that we hold to the first statement.');">³⁸</span> R'JOSE SAYS: IF HE ORIGINALLY INTENDED THIS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the animal of hullin should be the exchange of both, although he did not say: Behold this is the exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering (R. Gershom) .');">³⁹</span> SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MENTION BOTH NAMES [OF SACRIFICES] SIMULTANEOUSLY, HIS WORDS STAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal pastures until blemished, and when it is sold an exchange of a burnt-offering is purchased for half of its money, and an exchange of a peace-offering is bought for the other half of the money.');">⁴⁰</span> BUT IF AFTER HE HAD ALREADY SAID: THIS SHALL BE AN EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND SAID: AN EXCHANGE OF A PEACE-OFFERING, IT IS THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING.