Temurah

Our Rabbis have taught: Are we to suppose that if one says: ‘This foot shall be a burnt-offering’ the whole animal becomes a burnt-offering? The text states: All that any man giveth of it unto the Lord shall be holy:1 ‘Of it2 unto the Lord’, but not the whole of it [the animal] ‘unto the Lord’. I might think that it [the animal] becomes hullin, therefore the text states: ‘It shall be holy’.3 How is one to act?4 It must be sold for the requirements of burnt-offerings, and its money is hullin except for the value of its limb. This is the teaching of R. Meir and R. Judah. R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, say: Whence do we derive that if one says, ‘The foot of this animal shall be a burnt-offering’, the whole animal becomes a burnt-offering? Because [Scripture] says, ‘All that any man giveth of it [shall be] unto the Lord’;5 when it further says, ‘It shall be holy’ this includes the whole of it [the animal]. 6 The Master said: ‘It shall be sold for requirements of a burnt-offering’. But does not he [the purchaser] bring an animal [for a burnt-offering] with the loss [of limb]?7 — Said ‘Raba: It is a case where he [the purchaser] says: ‘I undertake to bring a burnt-offering which can live’. 8 Said R. Hisda: R. Judah9 agrees where [he dedicated] a part [of the animal the removal of which] renders the animal trefah.10 Raba says: A part [the removal of which] renders the animal nebelah.11 And R. Shesheth says: A part [the removal of which] kills the animal. What is the practical difference between R. Hisda and Raba? — The difference is whether a trefah can live. R. Hisda holds according to the one who says that a trefah cannot live,12 whereas Raba will hold according to the one who says that a trefah can live.13 And what is the practical difference between Raba and R. Shesheth? — The difference between them is as regards the ruling of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar says: If the thigh of an animal was removed and the hollow [thereof], it [the animal] is nebelah.14 Raba will agree with R. Eleazar,15 whereas R. Shesheth will not agree with R. Eleazar.16 They raised an objection. ‘Said Rabbi: I favour the opinion of R. Judah17 where [the dedication] is a part of the animal [the removal of which] will not result in death, and the opinion of R. Jose18 where the dedication is of a part [of the animal the removal of which] results in death’. Now can we not infer from this that [R. Jose differs] with R. Judah [even in connection with the removal of a vital limb]? — There is no difficulty as regards the words: ‘I favour the opinion of R. Judah19 where [the dedication] is of a part [of the animal] the removal of which will not result in death,’20 since R. Jose does differ in this.21 But from the words: ‘And the opinion of R. Jose where the dedication is of a part [of the animal the removal of which] will result in death’, cannot we infer from this that22 R. Judah differs?23 Shall we say this refutes all?24 — No. The statement is defective25 and must be read thus: The teaching of R. Jose is acceptable to R. Judah regarding a part [of the animal the removal of which] results in death, for even R. Judah does not differ with R. Jose save in regard to the dedication of a part [of the animal the removal of which] does not result in death, but in regard to the [dedication of] a part [the removal of which] results in death, he agrees with him.26 Raba inquired: What of the bird?27 [Shall we say,] Scripture says ‘beast,’28 and this is not a ‘beast’? Or perhaps shall we note that Scripture says korban [‘offering’]28 and a bird is also an offering?29 Let it remain undecided. Raba inquired: If one dedicated a limb for its value,30 what of holiness as such31 resting on it? Does one say, since one limb is dedicated the whole becomes holy for value,32 and since there rests upon the animal the holiness for its value, there also rests on it dedication as such?33 Or perhaps we use a single miggo34 but not a double miggo! — But why cannot Raba solve [the inquiry] from his own teaching?35 For Raba said: If one dedicated a male36 [a ram] for its value,37 it is dedicated as such?38 — There,39 he dedicated the whole animal,40 but here,41 he only dedicated one limb. What therefore is the ruling? — Let it stand undecided. [Abaye42 inquired of Rabbah:] If one dedicated a limb, what of the shearing?43 — Why not solve it from what has been taught: [Scripture said:] Nor shear the firstling of thy sheep,44 thus implying that you may shear where the firstling belongs to thee and to others [gentiles]?45 — There,46 no holiness rested on it at all,47 but here, holiness rested on it [the limb]. Another version: There,48 he has not the power to dedicate it,49 whereas here,50 he has the power to dedicate[the rest of the animal]. Abaye inquired of Rabbah: If one dedicated the skin of an animal, what of working [the animal]?51 — Come and hear: If one says, ‘Whatever is in the inside of this animal shall be a burnt-offering’, shearing is permitted, but work [with it] is forbidden on account of the weakening of the embryo within!52 — He replied to him: When [the Baraitha just quoted] states ‘but work with it is forbidden’, it means Rabbinically.53 If so, the shearing too should be forbidden?54 — He said to him: Work [with the embryo] which weakens it, the Rabbis prohibited, but shearing, the Rabbis did not prohibit. Abaye inquired of R. Joseph: If it [the mother] is a peace-offering and its embryo is hullin55 and he slaughtered [the mother] within [the Temple court], what is the ruling?56 According to the one who holds that offspring of dedications are holy at birth and not before, have we here a case of [slaughtering] hullin in the Temple court57 or not? burnt-offering while he vowed to offer up a whole animal. can live, his vow was fulfilled. But if the dedication was of a limb the removal of which would kill the animal, then holiness spreads to the whole animal, even according to R. Judah. something the removal of which results in the death of the animal, and therefore he holds that R. Judah will agree in such a case. his opinion in the case of a trefah. death, and the holiness spreads to the whole animal. animal outright, but will leave it struggling for a while. a limb, e.g., a leg of a bird; does holiness spread to the whole bird or not? as such. For since the animal is unblemished and is fit for a burnt-offering, what is the difference whether we sell it and for the money purchase a burnt-offering or we use the animal directly as a burnt-offering? animal as dedicated for its value, and ‘since’ the animal is dedicated for its value, we consider it also as dedicated as such. a male. burnt-offering. itself. permitted. the skin. The inquiry can be even according to R. Jose, for although if one dedicated a foot the whole animal becomes holy, the reason may be because a foot can be offered up, unlike the skin (sh. Mek). the penalty of lashes. is not holy. solved from the Baraitha, supra 11a, where it says: ‘If one slaughtered a sin-offering and found a four months’ old embryo alive’, implying that there is no prohibition here of slaughtering hullin in the Temple court. Sh. Mek. however, comments in this connection that there may be a difference between an embryo which has not completed its months of pregnancy, as in the case of the Baraitha, and an embryo which has completed its months of pregnancy, which is the case of our inquiry here. remains hullin until its birth.