010a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה י ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

Or perhaps, with all that same sanctity, he does not add a fifth^[1].

או דלמא - Since these are two sanctities, this counts as the first consecration in this respect, and he adds a fifth:

חדא מגו חדא - That is: the latter part of R. Abin's question refers back to the beginning of the matter. It is not a different question but requires two bodies and two sanctities.

And if you would say that the law for one body is: since it stands in that same sanctity, it does add a fifth; but if it was atoned for by another, and this one was designated as an olah^[2], what is the law? Does it add a fifth on the same body in the same sanctity, but not in a different sanctity?

ואם תמצא לומר קאמר - That is: "if you would say" is the same as "one from the other".

מהו - That is: do we say that since these are two bodies and two sanctities, it is not called a second consecration and does not add a fifth, since in one sanctity the other is included, and this same body has not had its fifth added? Or perhaps in the end it comes from the earlier one, and the second consecration is relative to the fifth. Another version, in the Yerushalmi, and as in the later version above of R. Abin's question about tmura, which they read here as well, its explanation is given there.

Or perhaps, since it is the same body that adds a fifth, it is a tie^[3].

Rami bar Chama asked: Does the one who consecrates add a fifth, or does the atoner (mekaper)^[4] add a fifth?

מקדיש מוסיף חומש או מתכפר מוסיף חומש - For it is established (Bava Metzia 53b) that the owners add a fifth if they redeem their consecrated property, but if others redeem it they do not add a fifth. Therefore, if this one set aside an offering for another's atonement, the question is who its owners are. If he redeems it, he adds a fifth as the consecrator; but the one atoned for is like another party and does not add, or the one atoned for is considered its owner.

Rava said: The verse says (Leviticus 27:15), "And if the one who consecrates redeems his house". It refers to the consecrator and not to the one who is atoned for.

Rami bar Chama asked: Does the consecrator make a tmura^[5], or does the one who is atoned for make a tmura?

Rava said: If so, we find a community and partners^[6] making a tmura, for instance when they appointed an agent to consecrate on their behalf.

א"כ - That is: if the consecrator makes a tmura, we find tmura with a community and partners. How so? For instance, when a community or partners appointed an agent to consecrate an offering for them. Here the consecrator is an individual, and we call it an individual's offering, if we follow his status. But we have learned at the end of our Mishnah that a community and partners do not make tmura; rather we follow the one atoned for. Therefore his offering does not make tmura, since many are atoned by it, and it is not called an individual's offering. And we learn later from maaser that an individual's offering makes tmura, but a community's or partners' does not.

And furthermore, as Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav Huna, it was taught: "His offering to the Lord for his nazirite vow, besides what his hand can reach".

Is a nazirite^[7] judged by means (hasagat yad)^[8]?

השג יד - This is an offering that rises and falls (in value, according to means). But is not the nazirite's offering fixed, whether rich or poor?

How so? "His offering to the Lord for his nazirite vow" means he set it aside from his own. "Besides what his hand can reach" means that others set it aside for him.

הא כיצד - The verse says: his offering that he set aside is from his own; he shall bring it for his vow, besides what his hand can reach. That is, besides one who cannot set aside from his own because he is poor, whose hand reaches later, when others give him the means; he should bring it too, and he fulfils his obligation.

For what halachic consequence?

If you say it is with regard to atonement,

לענין כפרה - To teach us that one can atone with an animal that another set aside for his need.

Obviously it atones for him.

Rather, it is with regard to tmura, and this is what it says: even when others set it aside for him, he makes a tmura with it.

מה כשהפריש הוא משלו - That is: he is the one who makes a tmura with it, and no one else. Even when others set it aside for him, he makes a tmura with it, and no one else.

Learn from this that we follow the one who is atoned for^[9], and it does not speak regarding tmura.

And as for what you find difficult, the gift^[10] that they give him.

Were it not for the Merciful One's "besides what his hand can reach", I would have said that it is a decree of the verse: he atones from his own, and not from others'. The verse does not teach us about others'.

מדידיה הוא דמתכפר - As it is written: his offering to the Lord.

What was the outcome of this?

Come and hear: for R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yochanan, the consecrator adds a fifth, and the one who is atoned for makes a tmura; one who separates from his own on others' produce has his own tovat hana'ah^[11]. What is the reason? The verse says (Deuteronomy 26:12): "All the tithe of your produce, and you shall give..."

טובת הנאה שלו - The separator's tovat hana'ah: it is in his hand to give it to whichever kohen he wishes, and not to the one on whose produce he separated it.

דכתיב את כל מעשר וגו' - As written: when you have finished tithing. This implies that whoever takes the tithe from produce in his hand may give it to whomever he wishes, and not to the one on whose produce it was separated. Tovat hana'ah is a small thing that one receives from Israelites on condition that they give all their terumot to his daughter's son, who is a kohen.

One may not exchange limbs for fetuses^[12].

מתני' לא אברים דחולין בעוברין - In the Mishnah, limbs of chullin in fetuses: that is, if one says, "let the leg of this animal be a tmura for the consecrated fetus in this animal's womb", holiness does not take effect on the limb.

Nor fetuses for limbs.

ואין עוברין באברין - That is: if one says, "this fetus in a chullin animal is a tmura for the leg of this consecrated animal", the fetus does not become holy.

Nor fetuses and limbs for whole [animals].

ולא אברין ועוברין - That is: chullin limbs and fetuses for consecrated wholes.

Nor whole [animals] in them.

ולא שלימין - That is: chullin wholes for consecrated limbs and fetuses.

Rabbi Yose says: one does exchange limbs for whole [animals].

ממירין אברין בשלימין - That is: if one says, "this leg of this chullin animal is a tmura in place of this consecrated animal", the tmura takes effect on the limb and spreads through the whole animal, and the whole becomes a tmura and is offered.

But not whole [animals] in them.

ולא שלימין בהן - That is: a single limb of a consecrated animal has no power to make a tmura.

Rabbi Yose said: But is it not so with consecrated [animals]: one who says "the leg of this one is an olah", the whole is an olah^[13].

והלא במוקדשים - That is: at the beginning of consecration, when one consecrates [an animal] and says its leg is an olah, as the reason is explained below in the Gemara.

So too, when he says "the leg of this one in place of that one", the whole shall be a tmura in its place.

It was said: Bar Pada said: holiness does not take effect on fetuses^[14].

גמ' אין קדושה חלה על העוברין - Gemara: holiness does not take effect on fetuses. If one consecrates a fetus in an animal, it is not holy for being offered; and if he offers it when it is born and did not consecrate it after its birth, he brings it as chullin into the Temple courtyard. And if he set aside a pregnant sin-offering, it is not like two sin-offerings as a safeguard, since the fetus is consecrated through its mother and not through itself, and it is like the offspring of a sin-offering^[15], which goes to death; and so in all its matters it is like the offspring of consecrated animals and not like the start of a consecration.

And R. Yochanan said: holiness does take effect on fetuses.

And R. Yochanan is consistent with his reasoning, as R. Yochanan said: If one consecrated a sin-offering^[16] that was pregnant and gave birth, if he wishes it atones with her, and if he wishes it atones with her offspring.

רצה בוולדה מתכפר - As for the offspring of a sin-offering goes to death: this applies where he set aside his sin-offering and it became pregnant and gave birth, for this is a halacha from Moses at Sinai: five sin-offerings die, and so we have received it, that it dies. But if he set it aside already pregnant, the fetus counts as another animal, and holiness takes effect on it independently, and it is like one who set aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard: he atones with whichever he wishes, and the other is left to graze. From this it is evident that holiness takes effect on fetuses.

And this was necessary to say: for had we learned only that first case, one might have thought that only there is it he who consecrated it.

תוספות

אמר רבא א"כ - That is: if the consecrator makes a tmura, we find community and partners making a tmura, for instance when they appointed an agent to consecrate. But we cannot say that if the one atoned for makes a tmura, we find community and partners making a tmura, for instance when an animal was consecrated to be atoned for by a single individual, since when an individual is atoned by it, it is not the community's but the individual's.

איתמר בר פדא - This is Bar Pada, son of the sister of Bar Kappara, as stated in the first chapter of Me'ilah (4b): Bar Kappara said to Bar Pada, his sister's son, "See what you ask me; tomorrow in the Beit Midrash." And this is not "ben Pedat"; ben Pedat is R. Eliezer ben Pedat.

ואין קדושה חלה על העוברים - That is: if one consecrates a fetus in the womb of a non-sacred animal, it is not holy for offering. If he offers it when it is born, and did not consecrate it after its birth, he brings it as chullin into the courtyard. And if he set aside a pregnant sin-offering, it is not like two sin-offerings as a safeguard, since the fetus is consecrated through its mother and not on its own, and it is like the offspring of a sin-offering, which goes to death. And so in all its matters it is like the offspring of consecrated animals and not like the start of a consecration.

ורבי יוחנן אמר קדושה חלה על העוברין - That is: if one consecrates a fetus in a non-sacred animal, it is holy. And if he set aside a pregnant sin-offering, it is like one who set aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard, and it is not like the offspring of a sin-offering. Rather, the holiness of the offspring is holiness of the mouth, by the power of the man and not by the power of the mother. We find no offspring of a sin-offering that goes to death except where one consecrated an empty sin-offering and it became pregnant.

ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה [כו'] רצה בולדה מתכפר - That is: there is no need for another consecration; it is like one who set aside two sin-offerings as a safeguard. Learn from this that R. Yochanan holds that holiness takes effect on fetuses, for if holiness did not take effect, a second consecration would be needed after its birth. But one cannot prove from the fact that it does not go to death that holiness takes effect, since one can say that even though holiness does not take effect on a fetus, the offspring still does not go to death, because R. Yochanan holds that a remainder is retained, and if he said "this is holy and its offspring is non-sacred", he has the choice, for a fetus is not a limb of its mother, as the Gemara explains below in Keitzad Me'arimin (Temurah 25a). But the main proof is that from his saying "if he wishes, it atones with its offspring", it appears that there is no need to consecrate it again after its birth, since once the mother was consecrated, the offspring became holy by his word and not by the mother's power. It is difficult: why did Rashi explain that Bar Pada says holiness does not take effect on fetuses, so that if he set aside a pregnant sin-offering the offspring is a sin-offering that goes to death; from where do we know it? Perhaps even though holiness does not take effect, it does not go to death, since he may hold that a remainder is retained and it is not a limb of its mother, as we explained. One can answer that Bar Pada must hold that a remainder is not retained, for otherwise the Mishnah (the offspring of shelamim, in Keitzad Me'arimin, Temurah 24a) would be difficult for him: one who says "the offspring of this one is an olah" makes it a shelamim offspring; and if he held that a remainder is retained, why is the offspring not an olah? He could keep the offspring as non-sacred. For R. Yochanan, who holds that holiness takes effect on fetuses at once, his intention is to consecrate the offspring as shelamim, and the offspring is shelamim by the holiness of his mouth. But for Bar Pada, who holds that holiness does not take effect on fetuses, the offspring is not holy by his mouth but only by the power of the mother; so if a remainder is retained, why is the offspring not an olah? We must say that from the moment of the mother's consecration the offspring becomes holy through the mother. And if you ask: since holiness does not take effect on fetuses, how can he say the offspring is an olah and it is shelamim? His words stand; one can say he speaks of its value. And if you ask: how can holiness take effect on fetuses, since he said one may not consecrate an animal before its time (mechusar zman)? Below (Temurah 25a), in Keitzad Me'arimin concerning the firstborn, it says that he said of a pregnant animal, what is in her womb, if male, is an olah; so one may consecrate it even initially. Why is it different from mechusar zman? One can answer that before it is born one may consecrate it, and it is brought as a firstborn by a verse (Bekhorot 14b).

Notes

1. 1. Chomesh (a fifth): when the owner redeems consecrated property, he adds a fifth to its value (Leviticus 27:13, 15).
2. 2. Olah (burnt-offering): an offering wholly burned on the altar, with no part eaten by the priests or the owner (Leviticus ch. 1).
3. 3. Teiku: a question the Gemara leaves unresolved.
4. 4. The mekadesh is the person who designates the animal; the mitkaper is the person whose sin the offering atones for, for example one who set aside an offering for another person's atonement.
5. 5. Tmura (substitution): exchanging a consecrated animal for another, which makes both holy (Leviticus 27:10).
6. 6. Community and partners: when an offering belongs to many, such as a community or partners, the law of tmura differs from that of an individual's offering.
7. 7. A nazirite: one who vowed to abstain from wine, from contact with the dead and from cutting his hair (Numbers 6:1-8). At the end of his term he brings offerings (Numbers 6:13-21).
8. 8. Hasagat yad, 'what his hand can reach': a person's means. The Torah sizes some offerings to what one can afford (see Leviticus 5:7; 14:21).
9. 9. We follow the one atoned for: the status of the offering is decided by the one it atones for, not by the one who designated it.
10. 10. A gift: money or an animal that others give him so that he can bring his offering.
11. 11. Tovat hana'ah: the separator's right to give the portion to whichever kohen he chooses, not necessarily to the one on whose produce it was separated.
12. 12. Ubar: the young inside an animal's womb. Avarim: the limbs of an animal, such as a leg. The Mishnah discusses exchanging limbs or fetuses between consecrated and non-consecrated animals.
13. 13. If one says the leg of this animal is an olah, the whole animal becomes an olah (as the Gemara explains below).
14. 14. Whether holiness takes effect on a fetus: whether the consecration of the mother reaches the young in her womb before it is born. This is the dispute between Bar Pada and R. Yochanan.
15. 15. The offspring of a sin-offering goes to death: Rashi cites a halacha received from Moses at Sinai, that such an offspring is not offered but left to die.
16. 16. Chatat (sin-offering): an offering brought for a sin committed unintentionally (Leviticus 4-5).