Commento su Temurah 5:3

האומר – on the offspring of a pregnant animal.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with someone who wants to make a pregnant animal one type of sacrifice but dedicate its offspring to be a different type.

ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים דבריו קיימין – for the holiness of the offspring takes precedence. But if he said in the first clause [of the Mishnah] that it is a peace-offering, she and that which she has in her is sanctified, and it is like one is sanctifying two animals for peace offerings, for if he retracted and stated that her offspring is a burnt-offering, the offspring is a peace-offspring. But here, it does not belong to state that while they are in the belly of their mother, for when we state that they exist and they are not in the belly of their mother, these words apply when it was sanctified [first] and at the end she became pregnant, for he did not deposit to the fetus any holiness, but rather it is sanctified from the holiness of its mother. But when one sanctifies a pregnant woman, it is considered that the fetus receives the holiness. But Rabbi Meir holds (see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1) that the first language takes hold.

If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand. If he first dedicates the offspring and then the mother, there is no problem. The mother will be a shelamim and the offspring an olah (if it is male). Note that it is probably intentional that the mother is a shelamim and the offspring an olah, because the owner doesn’t get any parts of the olah, whereas he does get to eat a majority of the shelamim. Naturally, he would be more interested in making the larger animal into the sacrifice that he can eat.

אם לכך נתכוין מתחלה – when he said that she (i.e., the mother) is a peace-offering, he did not intend [to speak] about her offspring.

But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim. The problem here is that he first makes the mother into a shelamim and then tries to make the offspring into an olah. According to Rabbi Meir, once the mother is a shelamim, its offspring will automatically have the same status. He cannot change that by trying to make it into an olah. Rabbi Yose disagrees. If from the outset he intended to make the mother a shelamim and the offspring an olah, but he just happened to dedicate the mother first, then his words do stand. The fact that he dedicated the mother right before the offspring does not matter. However, if he intended at first to make the mother into a shelamim, and then later changed his mind, then both the mother and the offspring are shelamim.

הואיל ואי אשפר לקרות שני שמות כאחת – the mouth is unable to say two things at the same time.

דבריו קיימין – that even at the conclusion of his words, the person is made responsible.

נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה – even though he retracted in as much time as is needed for an utterance and he stated that her offspring is a burnt-offering, he didn’t say anything, for since that at the time when he dedicated its mother as a peace-offering, he didn’t intend that the offspring would be a burnt-offering. Because we establish that every time as is needed for an utterance is like something spoken, except from one who dedicates and commands and blasphemes and worships idolatry and betroths and divorces, for these six [things] no retraction has any effect in them, even though he retracted in as much time as is needed for an utterance. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.