Komentarz do Temura 5:11

כיצד מערימין על הבכור – to cancel the obligation/release it (i.e., the firstling) from the Kohen and to sacrifice it for his own obligation.

Introduction The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with what is called “acting deceptively with regard to the first born.” The first-born animal has to be offered as a sacrifice, unless it is blemished. The idea with acting deceptively is that the owner of the animal giving birth wants to use the offspring as another sacrifice that he is obligated to bring. For instance, he vowed to bring an olah, and now he wants to bring the first-born and have it count as the olah. This is sort of like “double-dipping” when it comes to sacrifices, but we can easily understand why this was helpful to someone who might not be able to afford to give away both the first-born and another animal that he owes as a sacrifice.

ילדה זכר יקרב עולה – for a firstling is not holy other than in the womb, and since ab initio, it takes effect in another holiness, furthermore, the holiness of its being a firstling no long takes effect with it.

How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?
He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah. One can dedicate an animal while it is still in its mother’s womb. Since this animal was dedicated before it was born and become a “first-born” it has the status of an olah and he can use it as such.

ואם נקבה זבחי שלמים – we are not speaking about a female beast, for the female is not holy with the firstling that one needs to make a deception on it. But the sanctified beast, that if it is sin-offering and she became pregnant and one wants to make a deception so that it will not go to die, for the offspring of a sin-offering goes to its death, one can change it it to another sanctity. [And this comes to inform us] that the offspring of Holy Things, while they are born holy and not in the wombs of their mother, for since they had not yet been sanctified with the holiness of their mothers, one is able to engraft upon them another holiness, so that when they are born, they will not be a sin-offering.

[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. He can make the animal into a shelamim (an offering of wellbeing) by stipulating that it will be a shelamim if it is female. Note that this has nothing to do with the acting deceptively with a first-born because a female animal does not have the status of a first-born. It is only taught here because of the clauses that follow.

[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. The person can make a double stipulation and then if both are born, the male is an olah and the female is a shelamim.

ילדה שני זכרים – we are speaking about an unconsecrated animal, if the animal was dedicated, how was something that was sanctified as a burnt-offering let it be a burnt-offering, for the other one refers to the sanctity of its mother. But it is certainly an unconsecrated animal, and therefore, this one whose monetary value was not sanctified is unconsecrated. But however, on both of them, the holiness of a burnt-offering exists. For since he stated that if [he born animal] is a male, it is a burnt-offering, and because he did not vow other than for one, therefore, he should offer the one for his vow, and the second he should sell for the needs of a burnt-offering and its monetary value/worth is unconsecrated.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. The situation discussed is when a person says about a pregnant animal, “If it gives birth to a male, then it shall be an olah, and if it gives birth to a female, it shall be a shelamim.”

אין קדושה חלה עליהן – for the offspring become holy because they are holy [at the time of their existence] and not from the belly of their mother, and since that these when they leave [their mother’s womb] are not appropriate for sacrifice, they are not holy. But the Sages dispute Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel as they hold that the offspring are holy and exist through the holiness of their mother [from the womb]. And the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (see Talmud Temurah 25a).

If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin. If it gives birth to two males he does not need to bring both as olot (pl. of olah) because he vowed to bring only one olah. However, the sanctity of an olah does apply to the animal because it is unclear which of them he vowed to be his olah. So what he can do is sell the animal as an olah to another person to be used as an olah and that money he can keep as his own, as hullin (non-sacred money).

If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin. The same is true when it comes to the shelamim, because only a female animal can be a shelamim.

If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them. A tumtum (an animal with neither sexual signs) and a hermaphrodite (one with signs of being both male and female) do not count full as either male or female. Since neither of them fulfills the conditions of his vow, neither of them is holy.

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.

תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים – we have the reading, but we don’t have the reading, “and the substitute of peace offerings.”

Introduction Today’s mishnah contains a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose that is very similar to the debate found in yesterday’s mishnah.

הרי זה תמורת עולה – for the first language takes hold.

[If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Again in this situation a person said two things that are contradictory. One animal cannot be a substitute for both an olah and a shelamim. According to Rabbi Meir, we take into consideration only his first words, and the animal is the substitute of an olah, and not the substitute of a shelamim.

דבריו קיימין – and half of it is the substitute for a burnt-offering and half of it is the substitute of a peace-offering. And that which he didn’t state, the substitute for a burnt-offering and peace offering, ut he stated a substitute for both of them, because he (i.e., Rabbi Yossi) holds that if I stated the substitute of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, it will be holy and not offered, according to the law that a person who states that half of it will be a burnt-offering and half of it a piece offering, that it is holy and not offered. And he erred in this and held that a lamb can be a substitute on each one of them just as it should be completely sanctified to be offered up, therefore, even though he stated it in this language, he intended it for both, but it should sent out to pasture until it develops a blemish and it should be sold and then he can bring with its monetary value half for a burnt-offering and with the monetary value of the [other] half a peace-offering, and in this we are dealing, as for example, that there were before him a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, when he substituted this for them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah. Rabbi Yose says that if he intended to make the animal both the substitute of a shelamim and the substitute of an olah, his words count. Such an animal is half a substitute for an olah and half for a shelamim. Obviously it cannot be sacrificed; rather it must be let out to pasture until it is blemished, then sold and with half of the proceeds he brings an olah and with the other half he brings a shelamim. If, however, he said one thing and then changed his mind, his first words count. Once one has dedicated an animal or made it into a substitute, he cannot subsequently change his mind.

תחת זו חליפי זו תמורת זו – all of them are the language of substitution/exchange.

Introduction This mishnah teaches what actual words are capable of making one animal a substitute for another. We should again remember that the laws of “temurah” refer to one who tries to make one animal holy in place of another animal that is already dedicated. The substitution works in making the new animal holy, but it does not work in making the original animal into hullin (non-sacred). In other words, he was trying to redeem one animal for another, but since he used the language of substituting, his redemption fails.

מחוללת – it is the language of desecration/defamation. And he didn’t say anything, for a sacred pure animal goes out to unconsecrated purposes.

[If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute. There are three different words that can cause a substitute to be made: “tahat” “temurat” and “halufat.” If any of these three phrases are used the new animal is holy and the original animal is still holy.

ואם היה הקדש בעל מום יצא לחולין – even though it is not worth like that of a consecrated animal with a blemish, according to the Torah, even something sanctified that is worth one-hundred Maneh that was redeemed for the equivalent of a penny, it is redeemed. And even though it went out to an unconsecrated purpose from the Torah, one must, according to the Rabbis make money, meaning to say, to pay the money so that the sanctified thing will not become overcharged, but from the Torah, there is no overreaching for that which is sanctified, as it is written (Leviticus 25:14): “you shall not wrong one another,” your brother/another person, but not that which is sanctified.

[If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal]. However, if one uses the word for redeem, then he has not made a substitute. If the original dedicated animal is not blemished then it cannot be redeemed and his words do not have any effect. If the dedicated animal was blemished then his redemption is successful and the original animal is now hullin and the substitute animal is holy. However, he must make sure that the value of the hullin animal he used to redeem is at least equal to the value of the dedicated animal that was being redeemed, as is always the case when redeeming blemished sacrifices.

תחת חטאת או תחת עולה – he stated anonymously but did not state in place of this sin-offering or this burnt-offering.

Introduction The final mishnah of chapter five discusses the precise language that must be used for a substitute to be valid.

לא אמר כלום – as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “One may not exchange or substitute another for it,” until the sanctified thing is known and special when one substitutes for it.

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. In order for the substitute to be valid he must specify the animal that is being substituted for. If he does not specify an animal that he owns, then his words have no validity.

תחת חטאת זו – and that sin-offering was standing before him.

If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah. One cannot make an unclean animal (such as a pig or camel) into an olah, or any sacrifice for that matter. If one takes such an animal and declares it to be an olah, he has said nothing. However, if he says that the animal will “be for an olah” we interpret him as meaning that the animal will be used to bring another animal for an olah. Therefore the unclean or blemished animal can be sold and with its proceeds an olah is brought.

הרי אלו לעולה – which implies for the monetary value of the burnt-offering, for if they themselves want to offer it, he would say, “lo, these are a burnt-offering.”