Temurah

If one frees a half of his slave,1 he goes out free, since his letter of manumission and his right of possession come simultaneously. But if you hold that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,2 and that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother, why then does she [the bondwoman] obtain freedom in behalf of her child?3 Has it not been taught: We approve the teaching that a slave can obtain a letter of manumission for his fellow-slave from the hand of one who is not his master,4 but not from the hand of one who is his master?5 You can therefore deduce from this that if one left over [the young], the act is not valid. Shall we say this refutes R. Johanan's ruling above? — It is a refutation. Must it be said that the opinion whether, if one left over the young the act is valid, is a point at issue between Tannaim? For it has been taught: If one says to his [pregnant] bondwoman, ‘Be thou free but thy child shall be a slave’, the child acquires her status [and is free]. This is the teaching of R. Jose the Galilean; whereas the Sages say: His words stand,6 because it says: The wife and her children shall be her master's.7 But how is the Scriptural text interpreted in support of the Rabbis?8 — Said Raba. The text is adduced in support of the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean who states that, the child follows her status, since it says: ‘The wife and her children shall be her master's’, implying that as long as the wife belongs to her master the child is her master's, [but if the wife does not belong to her master, the child is not her master's].9 Now does this not mean that [these Tannaim] differ in this, that R. Jose the Galilean holds that if one left over [the young], the act is not valid;10 whereas the Rabbis hold that the act is valid? — R. Johanan can answer you: All the authorities concerned hold that if one left over [the young] the act is valid, and the reason here11 is because Scripture explicitly says: ‘The wife and her children shall be her master's’.12 Then assuredly [the matter13 would be a point at issue] between the following Tannaim: If one killed a sin-offering14 and found therein a live embryo four months old, it was taught in one [Baraitha]: It is only eaten by the males of the priesthood, for one day and a night, and within the curtains. And another [Baraitha] taught: It is eaten by any man, in any place, and at all times. Now does not this mean that they differ in this, that the first Tanna15 holds that if one left over [the young] the act is valid,16 whereas the latter Tanna17 holds that if one left over [the young], the act is not18 valid!19 — R. Johanan can answer you: All the authorities concerned hold20 that if he left over [the young] the act is valid.21 These Tannaim, however, differ in this, one Master holding that the offspring of dedications are holy only when they emerge into existence but not earlier, whereas the other Master holds that the offspring of dedications are holy already inside their mother.22 And if you prefer [another solution], I may say there is no contradiction.23 Here,24 [we are dealing) with a case where he dedicated [a sin-offering] and it subsequently became pregnant,25 and there,26 with a case where it became pregnant and was subsequently dedicated.27 To this28 Raba demurred: How do we know that the reason of R. Johanan29 is because if one left over [the young] the act is valid? perhaps the reason of R. Johanan really is that a man can obtain atonement with the increment of dedicated animals?30 — Said R. Hamnuna:31 R. Eleazar, a pupil of R. Johanan, was in the presence of R. Johanan32 and he [R. Johanan] did not give him that answer,33 and yet you say that the reason of the ruling of R. Johanan is because a man can obtain atonement with the increment of dedications. BUT IF AFTER HE HAD ALREADY SAID [INTENTIONALLY]: THIS SHALL BE A PEACE-OFFERING AND HE CHANGED HIS MIND, etc. Surely this is obvious, that [its young] is regarded as the offspring of a peace-offering! For can he change his mind whenever he wishes?34 — Said R. Papa: This clause is required only for the case where one statement35 followed the other in the same breath.36 You might have said that two statements following each other immediately are considered as one statement and that this man was really reflecting [aloud]. [The Mishnah] therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. [IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD, THIS ANIMAL [OF HULLIN] SHALL BE THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, THE EXCHANGE OF A PEACE-OFFERING,37 IT IS THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF R. MEIR.38 R. JOSE SAYS: IF HE ORIGINALLY INTENDED THIS,39 SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MENTION BOTH NAMES [OF SACRIFICES] SIMULTANEOUSLY, HIS WORDS STAND.40 BUT IF AFTER HE HAD ALREADY SAID: THIS SHALL BE AN EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND SAID: AN EXCHANGE OF A PEACE-OFFERING, IT IS THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING. are regarded as two bodies. same master, since the possession of the slave is the possession of the master, and consequently it is considered as if really the letter had not left the hand of the master (Rashi). that of the mother. womb (Rashi). This holiness of the offspring, however, only commences after birth, but not as here when it is found in the inside of its mother, for we hold the opinion that the holiness of the offspring of dedicated animals commences at birth but not earlier. enough to be dedicated on its own account. These Tannaim therefore in reality do not differ at all (Rashi). through its mother or its young. may obtain atonement with the increment of a consecrated animal as here, where the young is a gain to dedications, the law of a young of a sin-offering being condemned to die only applying where he refused to obtain atonement except through the mother. may obtain atonement with the improvement of a consecrated animal? master. effected the exchange. a burnt-offering and a peace-offering (R. Gershom). money, and an exchange of a peace-offering is bought for the other half of the money.