תמורה י''ט ע''א. The issue is the וולד of a נקבה שהוקדשה לפסח בטעות

Introduction. A Sheep is pregnant. Is the וולד part of the mother? This issue comes up in the גמרא. There we have a case someone dedicated a כבשה (female sheep) to be a guilt offering , which it can not be. While a sin offering is female, a guilt offering is male.ויקרא ה.  But let's say the כבשה (female sheep) was not pregnant at the time it was dedicated, and then became pregnant. Then she and her offspring are sent to pasture until the get some defect and then sold, and with the money the owner buys a male sheep to be used for his guilt offering. But let's say the sheep was pregnant at the time. Then if she gives birth to a male sheep, that male sheep can be used for a guilt offering in the view of ר' אלעזר /R. Elazar. The חכמים/sages however disagree and say the law is  they are sent to pasture and sold. רבינא/Ravina says the reason for ר' אלעזר/R Elazar  is the וולד offspring is not considered part of the mother. So the dedication applies to the infant. But the רמב''ם/Rav Moshe ben Maimon holds the law is like the חכמים/sages that the sheep and her male offspring וולד are sent to pasture and also that the וולד offspring is not part of the mother.

 תמורה י''ט ע''א.  The issue is the וולד of a נקבה שהוקדשה לפסח בטעות  must to be redeemed instead of being brought as a שלמים? You can ask why should this be a problem? Answer: we hold that the וולד לאו ירך אמו. So when he declares the mother to be a פסח קרבן [even though a female can not be a פסח], that holiness ought to settle on the וולד שהיא מעוברת עמו עכשיו. I want to mention that even though we hold the וולד לאו ירך אמו, that is not totally so. For if it would be the the declaration on the mother would have nothing to do with the וולד and it would be "חולין"[not sacred at all.] Answer to the  above problem. Something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar. So the infant has קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] but still can not brought as a sacrifice and so must be redeemed. How do you see this principle? From ר' עקיבא and ר' יוחנן that a animal with a מום, if brought up on the altar by accident, does not come down. But if the מום came before it was sanctified, it comes down. This applies to a נקבה שהוקדשה להיות קרבן עולה also, even though she has holiness of body, still she comes down.. Thus: Something can have קדושת הגוף and still not be fit for the altar. The difficult part of this is the וולד הפסח.  Even though the mother can not be נקרב, the וולד should be. That is where the idea that I mentioned up above. The faulty consecration of the mother can not be thought to be irrelevant to the וולד, since if so, the וולד would be חולין. So in that sense the וולד is like an animal that שיש בו מום and then was consecrated. (I mean that there is a defect in the very act of consecration.) So even though it has holiness of body it is not brought as a sacrifice. 

Background information:  קרבן פסח can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a קרבן פסח and she gives birth to a male. This is one of those issues  where the רמב''ם קשה להבין. The issue is this. The רמב''ם decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold. [The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like ר' אלעזר who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a peace offering. And רבינא says the reason for ר' אלעזר is the וולד לאו ירך אמו. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the וולד can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother. Yet the רמב''ם decided like the sages in תמורה 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother. This looks to be a contradiction. רב יצחק זאב מבריסק says to answer the רמב''ם we can say the חכמים agree that the וולד is not part of the אם. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such, then the וולד is dragged along with her category, to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.רב שך asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the וולד is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the רמב''ם that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

Here the Rambam seems to be at odds with the Gemara. It would be simpler to say that the sages hold the unborn sheep is part of the mother.  But the Rambam is interested in the law, and so  here he is wondering what R. Yohanan would answer for the sages.  And he has a reason to say the law is like R. Yochanan, that the unborn sheep is not a part of his mother. 

We know how Ravina explains the argument between the sages and R. Elazar. But how would R Yochanan explain it? Clearly he would not say that the sages disagree with him. So we come to this idea of Rav Shach that the act declaring the mother sheep to be Passover offering which can only mean monetary value must transfer to the unborn sheep also.

\
מבוא. כבשה בהריון. האם הוולד הוא חלק מהאם? הנושא הזה עולה בגמרא. יש לנו מקרה שמישהו הקדיש כבשה קרבן אשם, וזה לא יכול להיות. בעוד קרבן חטאת הוא נקבה, קרבן אשם הוא זכר.ויקרא ה' אבל נניח שהכבשה לא הייתה הרה בזמן הקדשה ואז נכנסה להריון. ואז היא וצאצאיה נשלחים למרעה עד לקבלת פגם כלשהו ואז נמכרים ובכסף הבעלים קונה כבשה זכר כדי קרבן אשם. אבל נניח שהכבשה הייתה בהריון באותה תקופה. ואז אם היא תלד כבש זכר שיכול לשמש קרבן אשם לדעת ר' אלעזר. החכמים לעומת זאת חולקים ואומרים שהחוק הוא שהם נשלחים למרעה ונמכרים. רבינא אומר שהסיבה לר' אלעזר היא שהולד אינו נחשב חלק מהאם. אז ההקדשה חלה על הוולד.

תמורה י''ט ע''א. העניין הוא וולד של נקבה שהקדשה לפסח בטעות יש לפדות במקום להביאו כשלמים? אתה יכול לשאול למה זו צריכה להיות בעיה? תשובה: אנו גורסים כי הוולד לאו ירך אמו. אז כשהוא מכריז על האם כקרבן פסח [למרות שנקבה לא יכולה להיות קרבן פסח], הקדושה צריכה להתיישב על ולד שהיא מעוברת עמו עכשיו. אני רוצה להזכיר שלמרות שאנו מחזיקים את הוולד לאו ירך אמו, זה לא לגמרי כך. כי אם זה יהיה ההכרזה על האם לא היה קשור לוולד וזה היה "חולין" [לא קדוש כלל] תשובה לבעיה הנ"ל. למשהו יכול להיות קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא להתאים למזבח. אז לוולד יש קדושת הגוף, אך עדיין אינו יכול להביא כקורבן ולכן יש לפדות אותו. איך אתה רואה את העיקרון הזה? מר' עקיבא ור' יוחנן שבהמה בעלת מום, אם העלתה על המזבח בשוגג, אינה יורדת. אבל אם בא המום קודם שנתקדשה, יורדת. זה חל על נקבה שהקדשה להיות קרבן עולה גם, למרות שיש לה קדושת הגוף, עדיין היא יורדת.. לפיכך: משהו יכול להיות קדוש קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא מתאים למזבח. החלק הקשה של זה הוא הולד של פסח נקבה. למרות שהאם לא יכולה להיות נקרבת, הוולד צריך להיות. זה המקום שבו הרעיון שהזכרתי למעלה. ההקדשה של האם אינה יכולה להיחשב כבלתי רלוונטיים לוולד, שכן אם כן, הוולד יהיה חולין. אז במובן הזה הוולד הוא כמו בהמה שיש בה מום ואז התקדשה. (כלומר שיש פגם בעצם ההקדשה.) אז למרות שיש בו קדושת גוף אין מביאים אותו כקרבן.

Translation results

כאן נראה שהרמב''ם עומד בסתירה לגמרא. יהיה יותר פשוט לומר שחכמים גורסים שהוולד שטרם נולד הוא חלק מהאם. אבל הרמב''ם מתעניין בדין, ולכן כאן הוא תוהה מה יענה ר' יוחנן לחכמים. ויש לו טעם לומר הדין הוא כר' יוחנן, שהוולד אינו חלק מאמו. אנו יודעים כיצד רבינא מסביר את הוויכוח בין החכמים לר' אלעזר. אבל איך ר' יוחנן יסביר את זה? ברור שלא יאמר שחכמים חולקים עליו. אז הגענו לרעיון הזה של רב שך שהמעשה שהכריז על האם הכבשה כקרבן פסח שמשמעותו רק ערך כספי, חייב לעבור לוולד שטרם נולד.

Temura 19. My answer to the difficulty in the Rambam. I can not tell if this is what Rav Shach intended in order to answer the question or Rav Isaac Zev of Brisk. But at any rate, this is the answer that occurred to me as I was going to and back from the sea.

Introduction. A Sheep is pregnant. Is the baby sheep part of the mother? 

This issue comes up in the Gemara Temura 19. There we have a case someone dedicated a female sheep to be a guilt offering -which it can not be. While a sin offering is female, a guilt offering is male.(Leviticus 5). But let's say the sheep was not pregnant at the time it was dedicated and then became pregnant. Then she and her offspring are sent to pasture until the get some defect and then sold and with the money the owner buys a male sheep to be used for his guilt offering. But let's say the sheep was pregnant at the time. Then if she gives birth to a male sheep that can be used for a guilt offering in the view of R Elazar. The sages however disagree and say the law is the same as above. They are sent to pasture and sold. Ravina says the reason for R Elazar is the infant sheep is not considered part of the mother. So the dedication applies to the infant. But the Rambam holds the law is like the sages that the sheep and her male offspring are sent to pasture and also that the offspring is not part of the mother.

 I am freezing cold from the sea. But I was thinking about the subject in Temura 19 on the way back.  So I thought I should write down this thought while it is fresh in my mind..The issue is how can the unborn sheep of a female pesach/passover sacrifice have to be redeemed instead of being brought as a peace offering.

You can ask why should this be a problem? Answer: we hold that the unborn is not part of the mother. So when he declares the mother to be a pesach [passover sacrifice] [even though a female can not be a pesach], that holiness ought to settle on the unborn infant sheep.

Answer to the  above problem. Something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar. So the infant has קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] but still can not be brought as a sacrifice and so must be redeemed.

How do you see this principle? From R. Akiva and R.Yochanan that an animal with a defect --if brought up on the altar by accident, does not come down. But if the defect came before the consecration, it comes down. This applies to a female burnt offering also --even though she has holiness of body, still she comes down.. Thus: something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar.

The difficult part of this is the infant sheep has no defect. So even though the mother can not be brought as a sacrifice, the infant should be. 

I want to mention that even though we hold the unborn is not part of the mother, that is not totally so. For if it would be the case that the declaration on the mother would have nothing to do with the baby sheep, then it would be "hulin"[not sacred at all.] [So instead we say it has enough connection to the mother in so far as if he says this animal is a passover sacrifice, that holiness settles on the unborn baby sheep as well.]]

The faulty consecration of the mother can not be thought to be irrelevant to the infant sheep since if so the infant would be secular. So in that sense the infant is like an animal that and a defect and then was consecrated. (I mean that there is a defect in the very act of consecration.) So even though it has holiness of body it is not brought as a sacrifice.

Background information: A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. 

This is one of those issues  where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly. Yet there are ways of answering for him.

The issue is this. The Rambam decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold.[The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like R. Elazar who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a Passover offering. Ravina [in Temura page 19 side a] says the reason for R Elazar is the sheep that has not been born yet is thought to be separate from the mother. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the born sheep can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother.

Yet the Rambam decided like the sages in Temura pg 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother.

This looks to be a contradiction. Rav Isaac Zev [son of Rav Chaim of Brisk] says to answer the Rambam we can say the sages agree that the unborn sheep is not part of the mother, [in spite of the clear implication of the Gemara]. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such then the unborn is dragged along with her category--to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.

Rav Shach asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the unborn is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the Rambam. --that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

music file z58

 z58 C Minor  z58 nwc

Not a good idea to conquer Taiwan

I do think people have a right to what they have earned and worked for. So the whole premise of communism I see as false. --that anyone who has more stuff than me has to have exploited someone to get it.

On the other hand I can see that there is exploitation. So it makes sense to me that Russia and China would have become communist --in order to get to the right balance. When the overlords were just too abuse, there had to be someway to push back. But the trouble is what works in one place might not work elsewhere. Just because communism was seen as solution to China's troubles in the 1900's, that does not mean that it is a good idea to conquer Taiwan and force it to be part of China's totalitarian system. 

A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. This is one of those issues where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly.

A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. 

This is one of those issues  where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly. Yet there are ways of answering for him.

The issue is this. The Rambam decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold.[The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like R. Elazar who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a Passover offering. Ravina [in Temura page 19 side a] says the reason for R Elazar is the sheep that has not been born yet is thought to be separate from the mother. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the born sheep can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother.

Yet the Rambam decided like the sages in Temura pg 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother.

This looks to be a contradiction. Rav Isaac Zev [son of Rav Chaim of Brisk] says to answer the Rambam we can say the sages agree that the unborn sheep is not part of the mother, [in spite of the clear implication of the Gemara]. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such then the unborn is dragged along with her category--to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.

Rav Shach asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the unborn is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the Rambam. --that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

Here the Rambam seems to be at odds with the Gemara. It would be simpler to say that the sages hold the unborn sheep is part of the mother.  But the Rambam is interested in the law, and so  here he is wondering what R. Yohanan would answer for the sages.  And he has a reason to say the law is like R. Yochanan, that the unborn sheep is not a part of his mother. 

We know how Ravina explains the argument between the sages and R. Elazar. But how would R Yochanan explain it? Clearly he would not say that the sages disagree with him. So we come to this idea of Rav Shach that the act declaring the mother sheep to be Passover offering which can only mean monetary value must transfer to the unborn sheep also.  

the idea of learning Torah as being the highest ideal.

 I think is a sad fact that people do not have the idea of learning Torah as being the highest ideal. This is an essential approach of the Litvak world [based on the Gra]. But I have wondered about how this fits with other aspects of Torah. For example, attachment with God? Or other things in Torah which seem to be prime values. 

One is the land of Israel. That is after all an open verse [in Deuteronomy in the section called the Section on Fear.] "Do all these commandments in order that you should come to the Land and dwell in the Land."

Also the sages of Musar pointed out that great importance of good character. This comes even before the commandments as it says to walk in His ways and to keep his  commandments. The first thing in the verse comes first in preference as we see in the seven types of fruit that the Land Of Israel was praised for. 

Plus, I have also noted that the command to learn Torah is wider than is thought [because to some Rishonim it includes Physics and Metaphysics]. And it more narrow than what it thought because as the Rambam says Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law. "That means the only things that are authentic Torah are the Old Testament the two Talmuds, and the various midrashei Halacha an Midrashei Agada. So anything written after about 500 AD does not count as Torah.  

defending Taiwan.

 There is a kind of difference between democracies. While I can see the importance of supporting democracy, that does not mean the same thing everywhere. So to give one example I can see the importance of defending Taiwan. Some might object because of the USA involvment in Vietnam. But that is not the same thing as defending South Vietnam. (It was about as a corrupt democracy as one could imagine. Thar is exactly why many people in South Vietnam supported the North.) Others might object to the USA involvment in Afghanistan. But defending Taiwan is not same thing as trying to create a Democracy in Afghanistan.

 

[ I am referring to the problem that China seems intend on conquering Taiwan like it did Hong Kong. What is it that I have against  Communism? It is that not everyone that claims to be exploited has been exploited. Some have and some have not. If you attribute validity to anyone who claims to have been exploited, you end up with the way the USA is becoming nowadays.]