Temurah 50

Chapter 50

א המשחרר חצי עבדו יצא לחירות גיטו וידו באין כאחת

1 If one frees a half of his slave,1

ב ואי אמרת שיירו משוייר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא אמאי זכתה לו והא תניא נראין שהעבד זוכה לקבל גט שחרור של חברו מיד רבו שאינו שלו ולא מיד רבו שלו אלא ש"מ אם שיירו אינו משוייר ותיובתא דרבי יוחנן תיובתא

2 he goes out free, since his letter of manumission and his right of possession come simultaneously. But if you hold that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,2 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 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,4 but not from the hand of one who is his master?5 You can therefore deduce from this that if one left over [the young], the act is not valid.

ג לימא אם שיירו משוייר תנאי היא דתניא האומר לשפחתו הרי את בת חורין וולדך עבד ולדה כמוה דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי וחכמים אומרים דבריו קיימין משום שנאמר (שמות כא, ד) האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה

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

ד קרא מאי תלמודא לרבנן אמר רבא (אמר) קרא לרבי יוסי הגלילי דקתני ולדה כמוה שנאמר האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה בזמן שהאשה לאדוניה ולדה לאדוניה

4 This is the teaching of R'Jose the Galilean; whereas the Sages say: His words stand,6 because it says: The wife and her children shall be her master's.7 But how is the Scriptural text interpreted in support of the Rabbis?8 - Said Raba. 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].9

ה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דרבי יוסי סבר שיירו אינו משוייר ורבנן סברי משוייר

5 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;10 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 here11 is because Scripture explicitly says: 'The wife and her children shall be her master's'.12

ו אמר לך ר' יוחנן דכולי עלמא שיירו משוייר והכא היינו טעמא דאמר קרא האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה

6 Then assuredly [the matter13 would be a point at issue] between the following Tannaim: If one killed a sin-offering14 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.

ז אלא ודאי לימא כי הני תנאי דתניא השוחט את החטאת ומצא בה בן ד' חי תני חדא אין נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה ואינה נאכלת אלא ליום אחד ואינה נאכלת אלא לפנים מן הקלעים

7 And another [Baraitha] taught: It is eaten by any man, in any place, and at all times. Now does not this mean that they differ in this, that the first Tanna15 holds that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,16 whereas the latter Tanna17

ח ותניא אידך נאכלת לכל אדם ונאכלת בכל מקום ונאכלת לעולם

8 holds that if one left over [the young], the act is not18 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

ט מאי לאו תנאי דת"ק סבר שיירו אינו משוייר ומר סבר שיירו משויר

9 - R'Johanan can answer you: All the authorities concerned hold20 that if he left over [the young] the act is valid.21 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.22

י אמר לך רבי יוחנן דכ"ע אם שיירו משוייר והני תנאי בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים ומר סבר ולדי קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים

10 And if you prefer [another solution], I may say there is no contradiction.23 Here,24 [we are dealing) with a case where he dedicated [a sin-offering] and it subsequently became pregnant,25

יא ואיבעית אימא לא קשיא כאן בשהקדישה ולבסוף נתעברה

11 and there,26 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

יב כאן בשנתעברה ולבסוף הקדישה

יג מתקיף לה רבא ממאי דטעמא דרבי יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר דלמא היינו טעמא דר' יוחנן דאדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש

13 To this28 Raba demurred: How do we know that the reason of R'Johanan29 is because if one left over [th young] the act is valid?

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

14 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 - Said R'Hamnuna:31

טו אם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך כו' פשיטא ולדן שלמים אלא כל אימת דבעי מימלך

15 R'Eleazar, a pupil of R'Johanan, was in the presence of R'Johanan32 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

טז אמר רב פפא לא נצרכה אלא שאמר בתוך כדי דיבור מהו דתימא תוך כדי דיבור כדיבור והאי עייוני הוא דקמעיין קמ"ל

16 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. 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?34 - Said R'Papa: This clause is required only for the case where one statement35 followed the other in the same breath.36

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

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

יח אמר רבי יוסי אם לכן נתכוין תחלה הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות ב' שמות כאחת דבריו קיימים ואם משאמר תמורת עולה נמלך ואמר תמורת שלמים הרי זו תמורת עולה

18 [The Mishnah] therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. <big>MISHNAH: </big>[IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD, THIS ANIMAL [OF HULLIN] SHALL BE THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, THE EXCHANGE OF A PEACE-OFFERING,37 IT IS THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF R'MEIR.38 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 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 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.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter