Temurah

What is meant is this:1 One can dedicate limbs,2 and can effect exchange for them,3 but one can effect no exchange with limbs for them [dedicated animals].4 And embryos which were dedicated while they were inside their mother cannot be exchanged.5 Now if the case [in the Mishnah just quoted] refers to offsprings of dedications, it is only in the inside of their mothers that they do not effect an exchange, but outside [their mother]6 they do effect exchange. But have we not learnt: Offspring [of dedicated animals] do not effect an exchange? — This7 is the opinion of R. Judah.8 If it is the opinion of R. Judah, then how can limbs become holy,9 for R. Judah does not hold that if one says: ‘The foot of this animal shall be a burnt-offering’ the whole becomes a burnt-offering? — He replied to him: Here10 also the case11 is one of the dedication of a limb [the loss of] which renders the animal trefah. Must it be said that Tannaim differ [on that point]?12 [For it was taught:] If one13 slaughtered a sin-offering and found a four months’ old14 [embryo] alive inside, one [Baraitha] states: It is only eaten by the males of the priesthood,15 within the hangings of the court, and for one day [and a night];16 while another [Baraitha] taught: It is eaten by all people, it is eaten everywhere [in the Temple court] and [is eaten at all times].17 What [does this mean]? Is it not that there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim, one Master holding that dedication has effect on embryos,18 and the other Master holding that dedication has no effect on embryos?19 — No.20 These Tannaim [of the Baraitha above] differ on this point, one Tanna21 holding that the offspring of dedications are holy at birth,22 while the other Tanna23 holds that [the offspring of dedications] are holy even in the inside of their mother. Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say: Both [Baraithas quoted above] are the teaching of one Tanna.24 One of these Baraithas25 deals with a case where one dedicates an animal and then it becomes pregnant,26 and the other,27 where he dedicates it in a pregnant condition. 28 We have learnt:29 R. Eliezer says, Kil'ayim,30 trefah31 and a foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section, a tumtum32 and a hermaphrodite do not themselves become holy nor cause holiness.33 And Samuel said: The expression, ‘Do not themselves become holy’ means as regards becoming a substitute,34 and the expression, ‘Nor cause holiness’ means to effect an exchange.35 And it has been taught: Said R. Meir:36 Since they37 do not become holy, how can they cause holiness? You cannot find a case38 except where one dedicated an animal and then it became trefah,39 or where one dedicated an embryo40 and it was then extracted through the caesarean section. Consequently we see that an embryo can become holy [contrary to the opinion of Bar Padda above]! — To this the answer was given: As regards an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of an unblemished animal, even Bar Padda also agrees that it becomes hullin.41 They42 only differ as regards an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of a blemished animal. Bar Padda holds since the mother is not holy as such,43 it [the embryo] is also not holy, whereas R. Johanan holds: These44 are two independent animals; the mother is indeed not holy but the embryo is. Another version: But the cases of kil'ayim, tumtum and a hermaphrodite you can only explain with reference to the offspring of dedication and in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah who used to say that one can effect an exchange with an offspring [of dedications]. Now only these are not consecrated as such, but other embryos become holy, [unlike the opinion of Bar Padda]! — Said Abaye: Regarding an unblemished [embryo] in the inside of an unblemished animal, all the authorities agree that it [the embryo] is holy as such. The point at issue is with reference to an embryo in the inside of a blemished animal, Bar padda, holding that since the mother is not holy as such, except for its value, the embryo also is not holy as such [except for its value], whereas R. Johanan says: An embryo is not considered the thigh of its mother, and although its mother is not holy as such, the embryo nevertheless is holy as such. SAID R. JOSE: IS IT NOT THE CASE WITH REFERENCE TO DEDICATIONS THAT IF ONE SAYS: ‘THIS FOOT SHALL BE etc. whole animal holy, since one cannot effect exchange for one consecrated limb. For even R. Jose in our Mishnah above only says that one has power to exchange limbs of hullin for whole dedicated animals but not the whole animal for a dedicated limb and certainly not limbs of hullin for dedicated limbs. has no power to exchange limbs for whole animals, so that if e.g., one says: ‘Let the limb of this animal be a substitute for this whole dedicated animal’ it is not holy. This is a restriction which applies to dedications, for if one dedicated a limb, the whole animal becomes holy, whereas if one says: ‘Let this limb be a substitute for this whole animal’ there is no substitute. are inside the animal. This will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah who holds that an offspring can effect an exchange, for according to the Rabbis, even if the offspring were outside their mother's body, they could not effect an exchange. them, thus implying that holiness spreads to the entire animal, otherwise there could be no substitution for limbs. permissible through the slaughtering of its mother, according to R. Meir, who holds that if an animal has concluded its normal months of pregnancy it requires a separate shechitah. separates a pregnant animal. For if pregnancy followed dedication, all the authorities concerned will agree that since the consecration of the embryo was through its mother, it is regarderd as hullin, as the offspring of dedications are only holy at their birth and not while inside the animal. the law of the offspring of dedication. subsequently became pregnant. opinion of R. Johanan. law of exchange has effect on permanent blemished animals, it has no effect on these cases. This is certainly the case, that they are not holy, if one actually consecrated them. being the same as the case of an unblemished embryo in the inside of an unblemished animal.