Halacha
הלכה א
הָאוֹמֵר וְלָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה וִהִיא שְׁלָמִים דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. הִיא שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה. אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ וְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שְׁלָמִים חָזַר בּוֹ וְאָמַר וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר הֲרֵי וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁאֵין חֲזָרָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר:
כסף משנה
1.
When a person says: "The offspring of this [animal]1This is speaking about an animal that is not consecrated. If an animal that is consecrated becomes pregnant, its status is automatically transferred to its offspring [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:1)]. is [consecrated] as a burnt-offering2In which instance, the offspring should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. and it is [consecrated] as a peace-offering,"3In the discussion to follow, it is important to note that burnt-offerings are only male. Peace-offerings can be both male and female. Sin-offerings may also be female (Chapter 1, Halachot 8-11). Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 4:2, the offspring of a sin-offering is not sacrificed, but instead, set aside to die. Hence the Rambam speaks only of the offspring of peace-offerings. his words are binding. [Should he say:] "It is [consecrated] as a peace-offering and its offspring as a burnt-offering," if that was his intent, his words are binding.4The difference between the first clause and the second clause is that the first clause speaks about the offspring first. Consecrating the offspring certainly does not determine the mother's status. In the second clause, by contrast, the person consecrated the mother first. Now consecrating the mother determines the status of the offspring, for the offspring is considered as "the thigh of its mother." Hence ordinarily if an animal is consecrated as a peace-offering, its offspring also has that status and should be offered as such a sacrifice (Hilchot Temurah 4:1). Nevertheless, in this instance, if the person originally had the intent of consecrating the offspring as a burnt-offering, the offspring is given that status, because it was never meant to be a peace-offering. The person could only make one statement at a time and the fact that he chose to speak about the mother first does not affect the offspring's status.If, after he made a resolve in his heart and expressed verbally that [the offspring] should be a peace-offering, he retracted and said: "Its offspring is a burnt-offering," even though he retracted immediately,5The phrase translated as "immediately," toch kedai dibbur, has a very specific halachic meaning: "Within the time it takes to say Shalom Elecha, Rebbi" ("Greetings my master"; Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). the offspring are [designated] as peace-offerings. For one cannot retract [pledges of] consecration even when one does so immediately.6In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:3), the Rambam explains that generally if one seeks to retract his statements immediately, the retraction is effective. There are, however, several instances marriage and divorce, the acceptance of a false divinity, blasphemy, the consecration of sacrifices, and the transfer of holiness from one animal to another where retraction is not possible.
Nevertheless, the Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) takes issue with him and argues that one may retract the consecration of an animal. Other sages, however, support the Rambam's position.
הלכה ב
הָאוֹמֵר יָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה תִּמָּכֵר לְחַיָּבֵי עוֹלוֹת וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה הַמְחֻיָּב עוֹלָה שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָהּ נָדַר עוֹלָה בְּדָמִים קְצוּבִים. הָאוֹמֵר לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה. הוֹאִיל וְדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ הוּא כֻּלָּהּ עוֹלָה. הִקְדִּישׁ אֵיבָר אֶחָד מִן הָעוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִתְקַדֵּשׁ כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ לֹא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ:
כסף משנה
2.
When one says: "The right forefoot of this animal is a burnt-offering," or "The leg of this animal is a burnt offering," it should be sold to those obligated to bring burnt-offerings.7So that it will be sacrificed for that purpose and hence, the portion of the animal consecrated as a burnt-offering will have been offered as such. The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary funds with the exception of the worth of that limb.8For that limb was consecrated. [The above applies] provided the person obligated to bring a burnt-offering who purchased [the animal] vowed [to bring] a burnt-offering for a specific price.9There is a difficulty because the person bringing the burnt-offering will be bringing a sacrifice that does not belong to him entirely. The Jerusalem Talmud (Temurah 1:5) resolves this difficulty, explaining that we are speaking of an instance where the person vowed to spend a specific amount to bring a burnt-offering. Since the animal is worth that amount, he has fulfilled his vow.If one says: "The heart [of this animal]..." or "The head of this [animal] is a burnt-offering," the entire animal is a burnt-offering, for he consecrated an organ upon which [the animal's] life depends. If one consecrated a limb from a fowl, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire fowl becomes consecrated.10This concept is debated without resolution by our Sages in Temurah 11b. The argument centers on the fact that the concept that one can consecrate a limb from an animal as a sacrifice was derived from the exegesis of a verse (Leviticus 27:9 . Now that verse is referring to an animal sacrifice and hence, our Sages question whether the concept applies to all sacrifices or only those involving animals.
הלכה ג
הָאוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ שְׁלָמִים קָדְשָׁה. וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בַּחֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ עוֹלָה וּבַחֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ שְׁלָמִים. הָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְאָמַר חֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים וְחֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת. הֲרֵי הִיא תָּמוּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בַּחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת:
כסף משנה
3.
When one says: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering and half is a peace-offering," it is consecrated, but it should not be offered.11Because there is no way that one animal can be offered for two purposes. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying physical blemish and then be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a burnt offering and half, a peace-offering.12For in this way, his vow will be kept to the fullest extent of his capacity.If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering13Here he must be obligated, because as stated above, a sin-offering may not be brought on one's own initiative. and he said: "Half of this animal is a sin-offering and half is a burnt-offering," or "...a peace-offering," or he said: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering..." or "...a peace-offering and half is a sin-offering," [the animal] should be left to die, as will be explained with regard to the sin-offerings that are left to die.14See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 regarding what is done with the animal. There the Rambam speaks about an animal separated as a sin-offering that was lost and discovered after its owner had brought another sin-offering in its stead. Since this animal was consecrated for a specific purpose and cannot be sacrificed for that purpose, it cannot be used for any other purpose and is hence caused to die. Similarly, in the instance at hand, since the animal cannot be sacrificed for the purpose for which it was consecrated, it is caused to die.
הלכה ד
בֶּהֱמַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ הָאַחֵר וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ קְדֵשָׁה וּקְרֵבָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּתָהּ דְּחוּיָה הָיְתָה כְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ אֵין הַדָּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ דָּחוּי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים הוֹאִיל וְהִיא בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדָּחִים. וַהֲרֵי נִרְאֵית כֻּלָּהּ לְהַקְרָבָה לְפִיכָךְ תִּקָּרֵב וְעוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה:
כסף משנה
4.
When one of the partners who owned half an animal consecrated his portion and then purchased the other half and consecrated it, it is consecrated and offered on the altar. Even though originally, when he consecrated half of it, it was unacceptable,15For half an animal cannot be sacrificed. the fact that it was originally unacceptable does not cause it to be unacceptable forever.16This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:24. Even though originally only its worth was consecrated,17Since only its worth was consecrated (for originally, it could not be sacrificed), there is more reason to think that it would not become acceptable afterwards. since it is a live animal, [we follow the principle:]18Zevachim 59a. This is also a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23; Hilchot Shegagot 3:8, et al. "Living animals are never permanently disqualified." Since it is [ultimately] fit to be sacrificed, it should be sacrificed. [Moreover,] if one sought to transfer its holiness to another animal,19Violating the prohibition of temurah. the transfer is binding.הלכה ה
הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ לְעוֹלָה. אִם הָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה נִתְקַדְּשָׁה קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ תִּקָּרֵב עוֹלָה. וְאִם אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
5.
[Whether] one says: "The worth of this animal is a burnt-offering,"20And thus from his statements, there is room to say that it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an offering rather than it having to be sacrificed itself. or "This animal is a burnt-offering," if it is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering,21It is male and unblemished. its body itself is consecrated and it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.22For any animal that is consecrated and fit to be offered as a sacrifice should be offered (Radbaz). If it is not fit [to be sacrificed], it should be sold23The Kessef Mishneh elaborates, proving that here also, the Rambam's intent is that it should be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold. and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.הלכה ו
אָמַר עַל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מֵאִסּוּרֵי קָרְבָּן שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָה יִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
6.
If a person said with regard to an impure animal24I.e., an animal from a non-kosher species. or another similar animal that is forbidden [to be offered] as a sacrifice that can never be consecrated: "Behold this is consecrated as a burnt-offering,"25Or any other type of sacrifice. his words are of no consequence.26The animal is not consecrated at all. Not only is it considered as ordinary property, the person who took the vow is under no obligation and need not sell the animal and purchase a sacrifice with the proceeds.We have punctuated the Rambam's words in this manner so that there is a direct correlation between the law stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 and the one stated here. Others maintain that the source refers to the first clause. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (see below), the Rambam speaks of consecrating an animal "for the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," no holiness is attached to it at all (see the gloss of the Ra'avad there). Similarly, in this instance, since he wished to designate the animals as a sacrifice, his words are of no consequence at all. As we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach,27The commentaries explain that this reference is to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 where the Rambam states:
One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah... to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood.... The holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires. It is not considered like a blemished animal, for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.
Similarly, in the case at hand, since a sacrifice cannot be brought from such animals, they should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase the appropriate sacrifice. if he says: "These are [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," they should be sold and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.28For we assume that he made his promise in a manner that it would be of consequence (Radbaz).
הלכה ז
הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי פָּרָה זוֹ לְעוֹלָה כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִשְׁלָמִים אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר דָּמֶיהָ לִשְׁלָמִים כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לְעוֹלָה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. וְאִם הִקְרִיב דָּמֶיהָ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵבִיא בָּהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר וְאִם הִקְרִיבוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵבִיא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר:
כסף משנה
7.
If a person said:29The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion among our Sages, Nedarim 29a, whether or not the consecration of the value (but not the physical substance) of an object for a limited time expires if nothing is done within that time. As will be stated, his ruling is that it does expire. "The worth of this cow30The Rambam is speaking of a situation where the cow's worth was consecrated, because all authorities agree that if the physical substance of the cow was consecrated, it would have to be redeemed for the first consecration to be nullified (ibid.). is [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated for the sake of a peace-offering," or he said: "The worth of this cow is [consecrated] for the sake of a peace-offering31This point is added, because it possesses an added dimension of severity beyond the first instance. For a cow may not be offered as a burnt-offering, but it may be offered as a peace-offering. Thus it is fit to be sacrificed for the sake of the offering. for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," his words are binding.32The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and maintains that the animal must be redeemed for the initial consecration to be nullified. The issue is debated by the subsequent commentaries. [Thus] if he [comes to] offer [a sacrifice from] the proceeds of its sale within 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed. If he offers it after 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed.הלכה ח
הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמַר אִם תֵּלֵד זָכָר הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹלָה וְאִם הִיא נְקֵבָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה זָכָר יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה. יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה תִּקָּרֵב זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הַזָּכָר יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה וְהַנְּקֵבָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים אֶחָד יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִמָּכֵר לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלָה וְדָמָיו חֻלִּין. וְכֵן אִם יָלְדָה שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת אַחַת תִּקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים וּשְׁנִיָּה תִּמָּכֵר לְצָרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין. יָלְדָה טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינָן קָדָשִׁים וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ עֻבָּר בִּמְעֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה קָדוֹשׁ:
כסף משנה
8.
If a person possessed a pregnant animal33In his gloss to Hilchot Nedarim 12:10, the Lechem Mishneh states that this applies only when the animal is pregnant and thus the fetus exists. If, however, the animal is not pregnant, the person's words are not binding. and said: "Should it give birth to a male, it is a burnt-offering. Should it give birth to a female, it is a peace-offering," if the animal gives birth to a male, it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If it gives birth to a female, it should be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If it gives birth to a male and a female, the male should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the female, as a peace-offering.If it gives birth to two males, one should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering34The Radbaz states that the animal of higher quality should be offered as the sacrifice. and the other sold for the sake of a burnt-offering,35For the person's initial vow encompassed both of them. but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money.36Since he is only obligated to bring one sacrifice, he is allowed to sell the second animal and use the proceeds for whatever purpose he desires. If it gives birth to two females, one should be sacrificed as a peace-offering and the other sold for the sake of a peace-offering, but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money. If it gave birth to a tumtum37An animal whose gender cannot be determined, because it is masked by a piece of flesh. or an androgynus,38An animal that has both male and female organs. they are not consecrated and they are like ordinary animals,39I.e., they are not consecrated at all and they may be used for ordinary purposes. Since the person specified that he was consecrating the offspring as a sacrifice and these animals are unfit for sacrifice, his words are of no consequence whatsoever. as we explained.40Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 (cited above). See the second interpretation given in the notes to Halachah 6. When a person consecrates a fetus, whose mother has a disqualifying blemish or the like,41I.e., animals that are of a type able to be sacrificed, but disqualified for a particular reason. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, op. cit. while it is in its mother's womb, it is consecrated.