Temurah

1 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds: The offspring of dedications become holy at birth,2 for if we were to think that they are holy from [the time of their existence] inside their mother, why should not holiness attach to them [tumtum etc.] since they receive the holiness of their mother?3 But in fact this proves that the offspring of dedications become holy at birth.4 And the [following] Tanna holds that the offspring of dedications are holy from [the time of their existence] in the inside of their mother. For our Rabbis have taught: If it had been said only. A firstling shall not sanctify.5 I might have thought that a firstborn [of man] must not make dedications.6 The text therefore adds: ‘No man shall sanctify it’,7 implying that it [the firstling animal] he must not sanctify [for another dedication] but a firstborn [of man may] make dedications. But I might still have said that he [a firstborn] must not sanctify [a firstling for another dedication] but others may do so. The text therefore states: ‘Among the beasts’ [saying in effect]: My concern is with a beast.8 One might think that he cannot sanctify it [the firstling] even while it is in the inside of the animal [for another dedication]? The text therefore states: ‘As a firstling to the Lord’, implying, when it becomes ‘a firstling to the Lord’9 you must not sanctify it [for another dedication], but you may sanctify the firstling [for another dedication] while it is in the inside of the animal. One might have thought that the same applies to the young of all dedications?10 The text therefore states: ‘Howbeit’, thus intimating a division.11 Consequently we see that [this Tanna] holds that the young of dedicated [animals] are holy [from the time] that they commence to exist in the inside of their mothers.12 Said R. Amram to R. Shesheth: If one says of a firstling at the moment that the greater part of it was emerging from the womb:13 ‘Let it be a burnt-offering’, is it a burnt-offering14 or a legal firstling?15 Is it a burnt-offering, since every portion which came forth [from the womb] is wholly burnt on the altar, or is it a legal firstling as every portion which came forth [from the womb] retains its original sanctity?16 Another version: Is [the firstling] a burntoffering, since this is a [stringent]17 holiness and therefore has effect on it, or is it a legal firstling, since its holiness commences from the womb?18 — He said to him: Why do you inquire? Is this not identical with the inquiry of Ilfa [as follows]: If one says in connection with leket19 when the greater part [of the produce] has been plucked:20 Let it be hefker,21 is it leket or is it free?22 Is it leket, since its holiness is derived from heaven,23 or is it ownerless, since poor and rich acquire possession thereof? — And Abaye explained: What is this query?24 Whose word do we obey? That of the Divine Master or of the pupil?25 Similarly here also, whose word do we obey?26 MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS: THE YOUNG OF THIS [PREGNANT ANIMAL]27 SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING AND IT [THE ANIMAL ITSELF] SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING, HIS WORDS STAND.28 BUT IF HE SAYS [FIRST]: IT [THE ANIMAL] SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING29 [AND THEN], AND ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING,30 [ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING.31 THIS IS THE TEACHING OF R. MEIR. R. JOSE SAYS: IF HE INTENDED [TO SAY] THIS32 AT FIRST,33 SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MENTION BOTH KINDS [OF SACRIFICES] SIMULTANEOUSLY,34 HIS WORDS STAND;35 BUT IF AFTER HE ALREADY SAID [INTENTIONALLY]: THIS SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING, HE CHANGES HIS MIND AND SAYS: ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, [ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING.36 GEMARA. Said R. Johanan: If one set aside a pregnant sin-offering and it gave birth, if he wishes he can obtain atonement through it [the animal itself], and if he wishes, he can obtain atonement through its young.37 What is the reason? — R. Johanan holds that if he left over [the young]38 the act is valid,39 and an embryo is not regarded as part of the thigh of its mother. The case therefore is like one who sets aside two sin-offerings for security's sake, where if he wishes, he can obtain atonement through it [the one animal], and if he wishes, through the other.40 R. Eleazar raised an objection: IT SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING AND ITS YOUNG SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, [ITS YOUNG] IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE- OFFERING. Now if we assume that if he left over [the young] the act is valid, why does it say: ITS YOUNG IS REGARDED AS THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING? Should it not say: ‘Its young is a peace-offering’?41 — Said R. Tabla: Ask no question from this [Mishnah],42 since Rab said to the Tanna:43 Recite [as follows]: ‘Its young is a peace-offering’.44 An objection was raised: If one says to his [pregnant] bondwoman, ‘Be thou a slave but thy child shall be free’, if she was pregnant she obtains [freedom] in his behalf.45 Now this creates no difficulty if you hold that if one left over [the young]46 the action is not valid, and that an embryo is considered as the thigh of its mother; for this reason she obtains [freedom] in his behalf, since it is on a par with the case of one who freed a half of his slave,47 and this will represent the opinion of Rabbi,48 as it has been been taught: the offspring of dedications, why should not at least the holiness of their mother rest on them (Rashi). Lord, no man shall sanctify it; the Heb. rufc denotes equally firstborn and firstling of an animal. Lord, he shall not sanctify it, implying that the firstborn may not sanctify a firstling for another dedication. for another dedication. and that of other dedications. Only in the case of a firstling may one make dedication prior to the animal becoming a legal firstling but not in the case of other dedications in the inside of an animal, for since the mother is holy, with every portion which forms in the womb the offspring receives the holiness of the mother. have a prior effect on it and cancel the other? dedication. before the greater part of it was plucked, there would be no need to carry out the law of leket, since leket only applies to what is looked after and eaten. first. dedicated independently and it is like one dedicating two animals for peace-offerings. does not apply, as this only refers to a case where the animal became pregnant subsequent to dedication, but where one dedicates a pregnant animal, the embryo is considered apart from its mother and is able to receive holiness on its own account. young is a burnt-offering. animal and it became pregnant afterwards, but where he dedicated a pregnant sin-offering, the embryo can receive holiness independently, apart from its mother, and thus he can procure atonement through whichever animal he chooses. did not leave over the embryo, i.e., did not declare it hullin, its holiness is still not derived through its mother. the young of a peace-offering, implies that its holiness is due to its mother and therefore in the case also where one set aside a pregnant sin-offering, it is regarded as the offspring of a sin-offering, the law of which is that it is condemned to die. her child.