011b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה יא ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

The Sages taught: One might think that if one says, “The leg of this one is a burnt-offering”, the whole of it should be a burnt-offering^[1].

The verse says: Whatever a man gives of it to Hashem shall be holy — of it to Hashem, and not all of it to Hashem. One might think [the rest] goes out to ordinary use; therefore the verse says shall be holy.

יהיה קדש - That limb is holy, so that animal may no longer be slaughtered for ordinary use. Rather, the whole animal is sold except for the value of that limb, which he cannot sell, since he sanctified it. This is how the text is read: the words of R. Meir and R. Yehudah.

What then does it mean? It is sold for the needs of burnt-offerings, and its value is chullin^[2], except for the value of the limb in it. These are the words of R. Meir, R. Yehudah, R. Yose, and R. Shimon,

who says: From where [do we know] that one who says “the leg of this one is a burnt-offering” [makes] all of it a burnt-offering? As it is said: Whatever a man gives of it to Hashem; when it says shall be holy, it includes all of it.

The Master said: It is sold for the needs of burnt-offerings — but we have already learned about an animal lacking a limb.

מחוסרת אבר - Because that limb is not his but is brought for the seller's obligation, so this buyer did not offer a complete burnt-offering; he vowed to offer the whole animal for his own obligation.

Rava said: This is about one who says, “I hereby vow a burnt-offering from it while it is alive.”

באומר הרי עלי עולה בחייה - I am obligated to offer all the limbs from which the animal lives while it is alive, and that is what he did: the seller sanctified only a limb from which the animal does not live, such as the leg from the knee^[3] down. Had he sanctified a limb on which life depends, sanctity would have spread to the whole animal, as R. Yehudah concedes regarding a matter that makes it terefah: if he sanctified a limb from which it becomes terefah, and that limb were removed, sanctity would spread to the whole, even according to R. Yehudah. Another version (Yerushalmi): the Gemara brings an animal that sanctifies its own body, when it is not whole for him. That is, this buyer brings an animal whose body is not his. It answers: for example, he said "for one zuz of this, an animal for a burnt-offering," meaning the animal is worth one zuz and he has acquired a zuz; therefore he did not vow a complete burnt-offering.

Rav Chisda said: Rabbi Yehudah concedes regarding a matter that makes it a terefah^[4].

מודה ר' יהודה - That sanctity spreads over the whole animal.

Rava says: regarding a matter that makes it a carcass^[5], and Rav Sheshet says: regarding a matter that makes it die.

שעושה אותה נבלה - E.g., the thigh and its hollow part. But regarding a matter that makes it terefah, such as the leg from the knee upward, he does not concede; the reason is explained below. (E.g., the heart or the gullet: this follows the one who says a terefah is not alive. This is disputed about which terefot (Chullin 42b). Since it is not alive, he has sanctified a matter on which life depends, and so he concedes.)

What is the difference between Rav Chisda and Rava? The difference between them is whether a terefah is alive^[6].

Rav Chisda holds like the one who says a terefah is not alive, and Rava holds like the one who says a terefah is alive.

ורבא ס"ל טרפה חיה - And that is not a matter on which life depends.

And what is the difference between Rava and Rav Sheshet? The difference between them is [the view of] R. Elazar, who said:

R. Elazar said: If the thigh is removed, its hollow part is a carcass^[7].

ניטל הירך וחלל שלה נבלה - Even though it is still alive, it conveys impurity like a carcass, for it is as dead and not as living.

Rava holds like R. Elazar.

רבא סבירא ליה כרבי אלעזר - Therefore, sanctifying a thigh and its hollow part is a matter on which life depends.

Rav Sheshet does not hold like R. Elazar.

ורב ששת לית ליה דר' אלעזר - In Chullin (21a) it explains what "its hollow part" is: all that lies flat and appears deficient.

They objected: Rabbi said, The words of R. Yehudah are correct regarding a matter on which life does not depend, and the words of R. Yose regarding a matter on which life depends^[8]. Does this not imply that [Rabbi] disagrees with R. Yehudah?

Granted, [if] the words of R. Yehudah are correct regarding a matter on which life does not depend, this implies he disagrees with R. Yose.

But [if] the words of R. Yose are correct regarding a matter on which life depends, does this not imply that [R. Yose] disagrees with R. Yehudah?

The refutation of all of them stands: the text is missing a word^[9], and this is what it teaches: The words of R. Yose are correct, according to R. Yehudah, regarding a matter on which life depends, for even R. Yehudah disagrees only regarding a matter on which life does not depend; but regarding a matter on which life depends, he concedes.

הכי קאמר נראין דברי רבי יוסי לר' יהודה - That R. Yehudah concedes to him regarding a matter on which life depends.

Rava asked: regarding a bird, what is the law — is it a behemah^[10]? The Merciful One said behemah. But a bird is not a behemah. Or perhaps [it is] a korban? The Merciful One said korban, and this too is a korban. It is undecided.

בעוף מהו - According to R. Yose he asks: if one sanctified the leg of a bird, a turtle-dove or a young pigeon, does the sanctity spread to the whole body or not?

בהמה אמר רחמנא - In this verse, "from all that he gives of it" is written as "behemah" and as "korban".

Rava asked: if one sanctified a limb for its value^[11], does the sanctity of the body take effect? Since the sanctity of money took effect, the sanctity of the body also takes effect; and since he sanctified one limb, did he sanctify the whole? Or perhaps one [such] argument, but not two arguments, [is possible]: one a fortiori^[12] argument, but he did not make two.

הקדיש אבר לדמיו מהו דתיחות - Sanctity of the body for the whole animal, so that it would be offered as a burnt-offering. Does R. Yose hold that from the fact that one limb was sanctified for its value, sanctity spreads to the whole animal for its value? An argument: since sanctity of value descended to the whole animal, sanctity of the body also descends, since the body itself is fit for a burnt-offering; why should he sell it and bring a burnt-offering with its value? Therefore, against its will, it is sanctified with sanctity of the body.

תרי מיגו - One: he sanctified only a limb for its value, and we must say: since [a migu] applies to the limb, it applies to the whole animal for its value; and since the whole descended for its value, it also descended to sanctity of the body.

Resolve it from Rava's own statement: If one sanctified a male for its value, it is sanctified with the sanctity of the body.

ותפשוט ליה מדידיה - For certainly sanctity of the body takes effect.

דהא אמר רבא הקדיש זכר - A ram; Rava therefore took a male, since he deals with a burnt-offering; a female is not fit for a burnt-offering, so one cannot say sanctity of the body.

לדמיו - To bring a burnt-offering with its value. He sanctified it with sanctity of the body, and he cannot sell it, since it is itself fit for a burnt-offering and will itself be offered. Here too, since according to R. Yose sanctity descends to the whole animal through the limb, it is also sanctified as to its body.

There, he sanctified the whole animal; here, he sanctified one limb. What is the law? This he asked of Rava, and it is undecided.

התם דאקדשה לכולה - And there is only one migu.

Rava asked: if one sanctified one limb, what is the law regarding shearing^[13]?

הקדיש אבר מהו בגיזה - Regarding offering you need not ask, for it is forbidden, since it weakens it.

Resolve it for you from what was taught: (Deuteronomy 15) “You shall not shear the firstborn of your flock”; but you may shear your own and that of others^[14].

בשלו ושל אחרים - A non-Jew^[15]: if you have a firstborn in partnership with a non-Jew, it is permitted to shear it. Here too, since chullin and sanctified property are partners in it, it is permitted.

There, sanctity never took effect at all; here, sanctity does take effect. (Another version:)

התם גבי בכור לא נחתא ליה שום קדושה - And even for the Israelite's share, since a non-Jew's partnership exempts [it] from firstborn status; here sanctity descends on that limb.

There, he has no power to sanctify it; here, he has the power to sanctify it.

אין בידו להקדישו - Since the non-Jew has a partnership in it.

Abaye asked Rava: if one sanctified the hide, what is the law regarding work?

הקדיש עורה - Of an animal. What is the law regarding work and shearing? Regarding shearing you need not ask, for it does not weaken the hide; but work weakens the hide.

Come and hear: one who says, “What is in the womb of this burnt-offering is permitted for shearing and forbidden for work, because of the lean fetus^[16] within it”

מפני כחוש העובר - And here too there is a weakening of the hide.

He said to him: When it teaches “forbidden for work,” [that is] rabbinic. If so, even shearing should be forbidden too?

מדרבנן - Is it even necessary to ask whether it is from the Torah, and to draw a conclusion from it?

He said to him: Work weakens [the fetus], so the Rabbis decreed about it; shearing the Rabbis did not decree about.

Abaye asked Rav Yosef: [if] a shelamim^[17] is a mother and its offspring is chullin, and it was slaughtered inside [the Temple], what is the law? According to the one who holds that offspring of sacred animals are sacred from their very existence^[18], is [the fetus] chullin in the courtyard or not?

היא שלמים וולדה חולין - One who sanctified a pregnant animal except for its fetus, for according to all, the fetus is not sanctified.

למאן דאמר וולדות קדשים בהווייתן הן קדושין - That is: a person who sanctified an animal, and afterward it became pregnant; I ask according to the one who says offspring of sacred animals are sacred from their existence. Now, at least, the fetus is not sanctified. If he slaughtered [the mother] inside the Temple, is the fetus chullin in the courtyard, and is he liable, since he did not sanctify the fetus, or not?

א"ל - Not liable.

Tosfos

רב חסדא סבר כמאן דאמר טריפה אינה חיה ורבא סבר כמאן דאמר טריפה חיה - Rav Chisda holds like the one who says a terefah is not alive, and Rava holds like the one who says a terefah is alive. In the first chapter of Bechorot (3a) this dispute is reversed in the case of a non-Jew's partnership, where Rav Chisda holds that a terefah is alive. This is one of the reversed passages in the Shas, and the same is found in the disputes of Abaye and Rava elsewhere, as shown in Nedarim (5b) and Nazir (62b, see there). However, it needs study in light of what Rava says here, that a terefah is alive; in the chapter HaChalutz (Yevamot 36b) Rava said that for a doubtful terefah one waits twelve months.

התם לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף - Rashi explains that [Rav Chisda] holds that a non-Jew's partnership exempts [a firstborn] from the firstborn law. But in the first chapter of Bechorot (3b) it says that even according to the one who holds that a non-Jew's partnership does not exempt, the Gemara says 'there sanctity did not take effect', meaning, for offering.

היא שלמים וולדה חולין ושחטה בפנים מהו - Explanation: if the fetus is forbidden as chullin in the courtyard. It seems one could resolve it from the earlier case: one who slaughters a sin-offering and finds in it a live fetus of the kind called 'ben d'' (ben arba), which shows that it was not considered chullin in the courtyard.

Notes

1. 1. An olah (burnt-offering) is an offering wholly burned on the altar for Hashem; neither the priests nor the owner eat from it.
2. 2. Chullin: ordinary, non-sacred animals or things, which may be slaughtered and eaten anywhere. Here, the money from the animal sold is ordinary.
3. 3. The arkuvah is the joint of the animal's leg (the knee or hock). A leg severed below it is not one on which the animal's life depends.
4. 4. A terefah is an animal with a fatal defect, for example a torn lung, which will not live long; it is forbidden to eat even if properly slaughtered.
5. 5. A nevelah is a kosher animal that died without proper slaughter; it is forbidden to eat and conveys impurity by touch.
6. 6. The question is whether a terefah counts as alive for this law. If so, sanctifying a limb from it is not sanctifying a limb on which life depends.
7. 7. On R. Elazar's view, when the thigh is cut from a living animal, the hollow part left in the flesh is a carcass; that part is dead.
8. 8. Mitiyvei: the Gemara brings a baraita as an objection against the view just stated.
9. 9. The Gemara explains that the baraita is missing a word, and the corrected reading is 'and this is what it teaches'.
10. 10. A bird (a turtle-dove or a young pigeon) can be offered as an olah. The question is whether 'behemah' in the verse includes it.
11. 11. Sanctity of value (kedushat damim) means its worth is dedicated to the Temple; sanctity of the body (kedushat haguf) means the animal itself is holy for offering. These are two kinds of sanctity.
12. 12. A migu is a logical argument of the type 'if he could do the lesser, he could certainly do the greater'. Here, one may argue from sanctity of value to sanctity of the body, but not two such arguments.
13. 13. Gizah is shearing the wool from an animal. The question is whether one may shear an animal one of whose limbs was sanctified, and whether shearing counts as work.
14. 14. The baraita on the verse 'You shall not shear the firstborn of your flock': the firstborn may not be sheared, but one may shear one's own and others' sheep that are not sanctified.
15. 15. A non-Jew (oved kochavim). A firstborn in partnership with a non-Jew is not subject to firstborn sanctity, so it may be sheared.
16. 16. Kachush means weakening. Work on the animal weakens the fetus in its womb; shearing does not.
17. 17. Shelamim (peace-offering): an offering whose meat is eaten by the owner and the priests in Jerusalem, within a set time.
18. 18. According to the view that the offspring of sacred animals are sacred from their very existence, the fetus is holy from the moment it exists.