Temurah — Daf 10b

לעוברה גופיה אבל הכא דאקדשיה לאימיה הא בכלל אימיה לא קדוש

ואי אשמעינן בתרייתא התם הוא דאקדיש לה וכל דאית בה אבל הכא דאקדשיה ליה כיון דליתיה אבראי לא קדיש צריכא

לישנא אחרינא מאי קמ"ל אם שיירו משוייר ועובר לאו ירך אמו הוא ותרתי למה לי

צריכא דאי אתמר בהא משום דאימיה חזיא לגופיה מגו דנחתא קדושה לה נחתא נמי לולד אבל אידך לא קמ"ל הדא

ואי אתמר בהא משום דקא מפרש קדושה על (האם) הולד אבל ההיא לא צריכא

יתיב ר' זירא וקאמר להא שמעתא איתיביה ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא כיצד מערימין על הבכור המבכרת שהיתה מעוברת אומר מה שבמעיה של זו עולה ילדה זכר הרי זו עולה אלמא קדוש עובר

אמר ליה כי מתניא ההיא בקדושת דמים מי אלימא קדושת דמים דקא מפקעא ליה מן הבכורה

אמר ליה אין והתנן כל קדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדישן ונפדו חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות טעמא דלאחר שנפדו דחייבין אבל קודם שנפדו פטורין [אלמא] דאלימא קדושת דמים דמפקע ליה מבכורה

איתיביה האומר מה שבמעיה של זו עולה מותרת בגיזה ואסורה בעבודה משום כחוש עובר שבה אמר ליה הא נמי קדושת דמים

ומי אלימא קדושת דמים דאסירא ליה בעבודה אמר ליה אין והתנן יוצאין לחולין ליגזז וליעבד טעמא משום דנפדו הא קודם שנפדו אסורין בעבודה אלמא קדושת דמים אסורין ליה בעבודה

איתיביה אין ממירין לא אברין בעוברין ולא עוברין באברין אימורי הוא דלא מימר הא מיקדש קדשי

אמר ליה בולדי קדשים הוא דקדישי וקיימי

אי ולד קדשים במעי אמן הוא דלא עבדין הא אבראי עבדין והא תניא אין הולד עושה תמורה

הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר הולד עושה תמורה

אי ר' יהודה תמורה הוא דלא עבדי הא מקדש קדשי הא"ר יהודה אברין לא קדשי (אמר) הכא במאי עסקינן באבר שהנשמה תלויה בו

איתיביה מקדישין אברין ועוברין אבל לא ממירין הכא נמי בולדי קדשים

אי בולדי קדשים מאי מקדישין הא קדישי וקיימי

the embryo by itself, a dedication has effect on it, but there, where he dedicated the mother, it [the embryo] is included [in the dedication of the mother], and therefore it [the embryo] is not holy on its own account. And if he made only the second statement,1 [I might have said] that there he dedicated it [the mother] and all connected with it [the embryo], but here where he dedicated it [the embryo], since it is not [emerged] outside, it is not holy.2 [Both statements of R. Johanan] are therefore necessary. Another version: What does [R. Johanan] inform us?3 That if one left over [the embryo]4 , his act is valid5 , and that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother.6 But what need is there for the two statements [of R. Johanan]?7 — [Both] are necessary. For if the statement had been made in connection with this case only,8 [I might have said] that there, where the mother herself is fit [for dedication], since holiness attached to it [the mother], it also attached to the embryo. But in the other case,9 [I might have said] that it was not so. [R. Johanan] therefore informs us [otherwise].10 And if R. Johanan had stated the law only in this case,11 [I might have said] that there the reason was because he expressly dedicated the embryo, but here12 the case is otherwise. [Both statements of R. Johanan are therefore] necessary. R. Zera was once sitting and repeating this tradition [of Bar [Padda]. R. Jeremiah raised an objection to R. Zera.13 What device does one adopt14 in connection with a firstling? If a pregnant animal was giving birth for the first time, one can say: ‘Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall become a burnt-offering’. If now the animal gives birth to a male it is a burnt-offering.15 Consequently we see that an embryo is holy on its own account!16 — He [R. Zera] replied to him: This was taught with reference to a consecration for its value.17 But is a consecration for its value strong enough to release from the holiness of a firstling? — Yes. And we have learnt likewise: All dedications which have received a permanent blemish prior to their dedication and were redeemed, are subject to the law of the firstling18 and the priestly gifts.19 Now the reason why they are subject to the law of the firstling is because they were redeemed, but if they were not redeemed, they would be exempt from the law of the firstling. Consequently we see that a consecration for its value is strong enough to release the holiness of a firstling. 20 He raised an objection: If one says, ‘Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall be a burnt-offering’, [the mother] may be shorn for its wool but must not be worked, because the embryo within is thereby weakened!21 — He said to him: Here22 too it is a case of consecration for its value. But is a consecration for its value strong enough to forbid [shearing and work of an animal]? — He replied to him: Yes. And we have learnt likewise: They23 become hullin as regards shearing and working.24 Now the reason is because they were redeemed, but before they were redeemed they must not be worked. Consequently we see that a consecration for its value makes it forbidden to work [the animal]. He [R. Jeremiah] raised an objection to him [R. Zera]. Our Mishnah says: WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR [DEDICATED] EMBRYOS, NOR WITH EMBRYOS FOR LIMBS.25 Now it says that one has no power to exchange with them [the embryos],26 but they [the embryos] can indeed become holy!27 — He [R. Zera] replied to him: [Our Mishnah] is dealing with dedicated offspring which are already holy. If we are dealing with dedicated offspring, it is only in the inside of their mother that they do not effect exchange. We infer then that outside [their mother] they do effect exchange. But have we not learnt: One cannot effect exchange with the offspring of a dedicated animal?28 — [The Mishnah above] will represent the opinion of R. Judah who holds29 that an animal's offspring effects exchange. If [the first part of our Mishnah above] is the opinion of R. Judah, it is only exchange which cannot be effected [with limbs],30 but they [limbs] are indeed dedicated.31 But has not R. Judah stated: Limbs do not become holy?32 — The case here33 is where he dedicated a limb the removal of which results in death.34 He [R. Jeremiah] raised an objection to him [R. Zera]: One can dedicate limbs and embryos but one has no power to exchange [them].35 — Here36 also we are dealing with offspring of dedications. If the case is that of offspring of dedications, why does the Baraitha say above: ‘one can dedicate’, for are they not already holy? — ‘The mother shall be a sin-offering and its embryo hullin’, it is hullin. Lit., ‘it is left over’. and left over the embryo for another kind of holiness, it does not receive holiness and is regarded as an offspring from a sin-offering which is left to die. And if one says that the embryo should be hullin his words are nugatory. According to the authority who holds that an embryo inside a dedicated animal is holy, holiness attaches immediately, while according to the other authority, holiness only commences when the embryo is born. embryo, thus teaching us that the animal and its embryo are considered as independent on one another in respect of dedication? commences when it leaves the womb of its mother. Consequently the dedication for a burnt-offering preceded the holiness of a firstling. sold unblemished. embryo, unlike the view of Bar Padda above. latter clause therefore says that they i.e., these blemished dedications etc. EMBRYOS. them, since they are hullin. dealing with a case where one consecrated directly an embryo, which is regarded as a first dedication. Hence we see that dedication has effect on an embryo, unlike the opinion of Bar Padda. being substituted. first Tanna of the Mishnah must share this opinion, since R. Jose, his disputant in the Mishnah, retorts: IS IT NOT THE CASE WITH REFERENCE TO DEDICATIONS etc., thus implying that the first Tanna agrees with him that if one dedicated a limb the whole animal becomes holy, and it is R. Simeon who opposes R. Jose later in the Baraitha, saying that at the beginning the consecration of one limb makes the whole animal a burnt-offering, but the case of exchanging is different, as it has no effect on limbs. dedicated. render the animal trefah (v. Glos.). Here, even R. Judah, the Baraitha says later, agrees that in such circumstances the whole animal becomes sacred.