When a person says: "The offspring of this [animal]¹ 5:1)]. is [consecrated] as a burnt-offering² and it is [consecrated] as a peace-offering,"³ 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.⁴ 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,⁵, 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.⁶ 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.

footnotes: ¹ This 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 ² In which instance, the offspring should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. ³ In 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 The 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 ⁵ The phrase translated as "immediately," toch kedai dibbur ⁶ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah

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.⁷ The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary funds with the exception of the worth of that limb.⁸ [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.⁹ 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.¹⁰ 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.

footnotes: ⁷ So 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. ⁸ For that limb was consecrated. ⁹ There 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 ¹⁰ This concept is debated without resolution by our Sages in Temurah

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.¹¹ 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.¹² If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering¹³ 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.¹⁴ 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.

footnotes: ¹¹ Because there is no way that one animal can be offered for two purposes. ¹² For in this way, his vow will be kept to the fullest extent of his capacity. ¹³ Here he must be obligated, because as stated above, a sin-offering may not be brought on one's own initiative. ¹⁴ See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim

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,¹⁵ the fact that it was originally unacceptable does not cause it to be unacceptable forever.¹⁶ 3:24. Even though originally only its worth was consecrated,¹⁷ since it is a live animal, [we follow the principle:]¹⁸ 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,¹⁹. the transfer is binding.

footnotes: ¹⁵ For half an animal cannot be sacrificed. ¹⁶ This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim ¹⁷ Since 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. ¹⁸ Zevachim ¹⁹ Violating the prohibition of temurah

[Whether] one says: "The worth of this animal is a burnt-offering,"²⁰ or "This animal is a burnt-offering," if it is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering,²¹ its body itself is consecrated and it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.²² If it is not fit [to be sacrificed], it should be sold²³ 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.

footnotes: ²⁰ And 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. ²¹ It is male and unblemished. ²² For any animal that is consecrated and fit to be offered as a sacrifice should be offered (Radbaz). ²³ The Kessef Mishneh

If a person said with regard to an impure animal²⁴ 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,"²⁵ his words are of no consequence.²⁶ 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,²⁷ 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.²⁸

footnotes: ²⁴ I.e., an animal from a non-kosher species. ²⁵ Or any other type of sacrifice. ²⁶ The 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 ²⁷ The commentaries explain that this reference is to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach ²⁸ For we assume that he made his promise in a manner that it would be of consequence (Radbaz).

If a person said:²⁹ 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 cow³⁰). 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-offering³¹ for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," his words are binding.³² [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.

footnotes: ²⁹ The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion among our Sages, Nedarim ³⁰ The 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. ³¹ This 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. ³² The 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.

If a person possessed a pregnant animal³³ 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-offering³⁴ and the other sold for the sake of a burnt-offering,³⁵ but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money.³⁶ 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 tumtum³⁷ or an androgynus,³⁸ they are not consecrated and they are like ordinary animals,³⁹ as we explained.⁴⁰ 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,⁴¹ while it is in its mother's womb, it is consecrated.

footnotes: ³³ In his gloss to Hilchot Nedarim ³⁴ The Radbaz states that the animal of higher quality should be offered as the sacrifice. ³⁵ For the person's initial vow encompassed both of them. ³⁶ Since 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. ³⁷ An animal whose gender cannot be determined, because it is masked by a piece of flesh. ³⁸ An animal that has both male and female organs. ³⁹ I.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. ⁴⁰ Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach ⁴¹ I.e., animals that are of a type able to be sacrificed, but disqualified for a particular reason. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, op. cit.