Temurah

Or perhaps, all [dedications] of the same holiness do not require the addition of a fifth?1 And if you will say that since this [other] body [animal] remains in the same holiness, there is no addition of a fifth, then if [the owner] obtained atonement through [a guilt-offering] and the first [automatically] was transformed into a burnt-offering,2 what is the ruling? [Do we say that] one does not add a fifth only in the case of the same body possessing the same holiness, but where there is another holiness,3 it is not so? Or, perhaps, since it is the same body,4 one is not required to add a fifth? — Let it remain undecided. Rami b. Hama inquired: Is the consecrator required to add a fifth [when redeeming], or is the one who is atoned for required to add a fifth?5 — Said Raba: Scripture says, And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house:6 ‘He that sanctified’, but not the person who is atoned for. Rami b. Hama inquired: Can a consecrator effect an exchange, or the one for whom atonement is obtained? — Said Raba: [Obviously the person for whom atonement is made has power of effecting exchange, for if only the consecrator has power of effecting exchange],7 then we find that a congregation or partners have power of effecting exchange when, e.g., they charge an agent to dedicate?8 And moreover R. Nahman reported: Huna informed me: It has been taught, Scripture says: And of his offering unto the Lord for his separation, beside that his hand shall get.9 Now is the offering of a nazirite according to his pecuniary means?10 How then are we to explain this? The words, ‘His offering unto the Lord for his separation’ refer to where he is able to set aside [the prescribed offering] from his own [means]. The words, ‘Beside that his hand shall get refer to where others set aside [the prescribed offering].11 For what practical ruling?12 Shall I say with reference to atonement?13 Surely it is obvious that he obtains atonement [with another sacrifice] seeing that they give it to him as a gift! Then must you not say that it is with reference to making exchange, and [the Baraitha above] means this: [Just as when he set aside an offering from his own means only he alone has power of effecting exchange],14 so if others set aside [an offering] on his behalf he alone can effect exchange?15 Deduce therefore from here that we go by the person for whom atonement is made!16 — No. One can still maintain that [the Baraitha above] refers to atonement, and as to your difficulty, do not [the others who set aside the offering] give it to him as a present? Had the Divine Law not included this in the text ‘beside that his hand shall get’, I might have thought that it is a Divine decree that [the nazirite] can obtain atonement only with an offering brought from his own means but not from that [set apart] by others, [although it is given to him as a gift]. The text [‘beside that etc.’] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. What is the decision in the matter? — Come and hear: For R. Abbuha reported in the name of R. Johanan: He who dedicates [and wishes to redeem his dedication] must add a fifth. The exchange of one for whose atonement [an animal is dedicated] is sacred. If one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain] for [the untithed grain] of his neighbour the right of disposal belongs to him [who separates].17 What is the reason? Scripture says: All the tithes of thine increase . . . . and hast given it, etc.18 MISHNAH. WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR [DEDICATED] EMBRYOS,19 NOR WITH EMBRYOS [OF HULLIN] FOR [DEDICATED] LIMBS;20 NOR WITH EMBRYOS AND LIMBS [OF HULLIN] FOR WHOLE [DEDICATED ANIMALS];21 NOR WITH WHOLE [ANIMALS OF HULLIN] FOR THEM. R. JOSE SAYS: WITH LIMBS [OF HULLIN] EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED FOR WHOLE [DEDICATED ANIMALS],22 BUT NOT WITH WHOLE [ANIMALS OF HULLIN] FOR THEM.23 SAID R. JOSE: IS IT NOT THE CASE IN RESPECT OF DEDICATIONS,24 THAT IF ONE SAYS: ‘THIS FOOT SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, THE WHOLE [ANIMAL] BECOMES A BURNT-OFFERING? SIMILARLY, IF ONE SAYS, ‘THIS FOOT SHALL BE INSTEAD OF THIS [WHOLE DEDICATED ANIMAL]’, THE WHOLE [ANIMAL] SHOULD BECOME A SUBSTITUTE IN ITS PLACE. GEMARA. It was stated: Bar Padda says, Dedication has no effect on embryos,25 whereas R. Johanan says: Dedication has effect on embryos. And R. Johanan26 follows the opinion he expressed elsewhere. For R. Johanan said: If one dedicates a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes, he may obtain atonement through it [the mother], and if he wishes, he may obtain atonement through its offspring.27 [And both statements of R. Johanan] are necessary. For if he had made only the first statement,28 [I might have said] that here, where he dedicated behalf of one's neighbour and it became blemished, who is considered the owner in respect of adding a fifth? Is the consecrator considered the owner and therefore the person for whom atonement is made does not require to add a fifth, as he is regarded as a stranger, or is the person for whom atonement is made considered the owner? partners are not competent to effect an exchange. Hence we can deduce from this that we go by the person for whom atonement is made, and in the case of a congregation or partners it is the congregation or partners who are making the exchange and consequently in this ease no exchange will be effected. exchange. chooses, and the privilege is not in the hands of the person on whose behalf the grain is tithed. We see, however, from R. Abbuha that the person for whom atonement is made can effect exchange and this is the answer to Rami b. Hama's query above. no effect on the limb. embryo is not holy. exchange. in regard to the limb and it spreads to the entire animal. Thus the whole animal becomes sacred and is offered up. without a special dedication from its birth, he brings hullin to the Temple court. If, therefore, he separates a pregnant sin-offering, we do not consider it as a case of two sin-offerings set aside for security, for the embryo is sanctified by virtue of its mother and not on its own account, and therefore is regarded as the offspring of a sin-offering which is left to die. Similarly, as regards the matter of dedication, the embryo is regarded as the offspring of a dedication and not as a separate dedication. became pregnant and gave birth, it being a Sinaitic law that the offspring in such circumstances is condemned to die (v. infra 21b). But where he set apart a pregnant sin-offering, the embryo is regarded as a different animal and therefore holiness attaches to it independently of its mother. We regard this as a case of one who sets apart two sin-offerings for security in which case he can obtain pardon with whichever one he chooses, the other being left to pasture. We thus see that holiness attaches to an embryo and no special dedication is required after its birth.