Temurah 17

Chapter 17

א בוצינא טב מקרא
1 that a young pumpkin [now] is better than a full-grown pumpkin [to-morrow].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest would rather sell the firstling for its equivalent value, for fear that if he were to reduce its price, he may after all not gain anything by it, as he may not receive the future firstlings. The additional gain of the moment will appeal to him more than the uncertain prospects of future gain.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ממירין מן הצאן על הבקר ומן הבקר על הצאן ומן הכבשים על העזים ומן העזים על הכבשים מן הזכרים על הנקבות ומן הנקבות על הזכרים מן התמימים על בעלי מומין מן בעלי מומין על התמימים
2 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ONE CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE WITH SMALL CATTLE FOR OXEN AND WITH OXEN FOR SMALL CATTLE; WITH SHEEP FOR GOATS AND WITH GOATS FOR SHEEP; WITH MALE [ANIMALS] FOR FEMALE [ANIMALS] AND WITH FEMALE [ANIMALS] FOR MALE [ANIMALS]; WITH UNBLEMISHED ANIMALS] FOR BLEMISHED ANIMALS AND WITH BLEMISHED [ANIMALS] FOR UNBLEMISHED [ANIMALS], SINCE SCRIPTURE SAYS:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10.');"><sup>2</sup></span> HE SHALL NOT ALTER IT NOR CHANGE IT, A GOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unblemished animal of hullin (unconsecrated) must not be substituted.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג שנאמר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב ואיזהו טוב ברע בעלי מומין שקדם הקדישן את מומן
3 FOR A BAD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A blemished consecrated animal. We therefore see that the law of substitute applies to consecrated blemished animals.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כז, י) בהמה בבהמה מכאן שממירין מן הצאן על הבקר ומן הבקר על הצאן מן הכבשים על העזים ומן העזים על הכבשים ומן הזכרים על הנקבות ומן הנקבות על הזכרים ומן בעלי מומין על התמימים ומן התמימים על בעלי מומין
4 OR A BAD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus 'a bad' i.e., a blemished hullin may be exchanged for 'a good' i.e., an unblemished consecrated animal. This shows that substitution has effect on a blemished animal.');"><sup>5</sup></span> FOR A GOOD. WHAT KIND IS MEANT BY 'A GOOD FOR A BAD?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are subject to the law of substitute.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה יכול אפילו קדם מום להקדישן ת"ל לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב ואיזהו טוב ברע בעלי מומין שקדם הקדישן את מומן
5 BLEMISHED ANIMALS WHOSE DEDICATION WAS PRIOR TO THEIR BLEMISH.
ו מאי תלמודא אמר אביי נימא קרא לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בו בטוב אחרינא ל"ל שמע מינה טוב מעיקרו עושה תמורה רע מעיקרו אין עושה תמורה
6 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence is this proved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The various rulings mentioned in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>7</sup></span> - Our Rabbis have taught: Scripture says, 'Beast for beast'; 'hence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the repetition of the word 'beast'.');"><sup>8</sup></span> we infer that one can effect an exchange with small cattle for oxen and with oxen for small cattle; with sheep for goats and with goats for sheep; with male [animals] for female [animals] and with female [animals] for male [animals]; with blemished [animals] for unblemished [animals] and with unblemished [animals] for blemished [animals]. One might think that this is so even if they had a permanent blemish prior to their dedication? The text therefore States: 'He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a goo What kind is meant by 'a good for a bad'?
ז רבא אמר תרווייהו טוב ייתורי מייתרי אם כן נכתוב קרא לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו ברע או רע בו למה לי למכתב תרוייהו טוב חד טוב אפי' בטוב נמי כי ממיר לקי ואידך טוב מעיקרו עושה תמורה רע מעיקרו אין עושה תמורה
7 Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish [but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>9</sup></span> not where the blemish was prior to their dedication]. How is this implied [in the Scriptural text]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is a difference as regards the law of exchange where the blemish occurs before dedication.');"><sup>10</sup></span> - Said Abaye: Let Scripture say, 'He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we could infer: Or a bad hullin could not be exchanged either for 'a good' or for 'a bad' consecrated animal.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח ואביי אמר קל וחומר הוא ומה טוב ברע דעלויי קא מעלי ליה לקי טוב בטוב דכי הדדי נינהו לא כל שכן דלקי
8 What need is there for the second text, 'a good'? Deduce therefore from here that only if the animal is originally 'good'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unblemished when consecrated, a blemish occurring to it subsequently.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט ורבא אין עונשין מן הדין ואביי אמר לך הא לאו דינא הוא מי גרע טוב מרע
9 the exchange takes effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The substitute becoming sacred.');"><sup>13</sup></span> , but the exchange takes no effect in respect of an animal originally 'bad'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., blemished when consecrated.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Raba says: Both the expressions 'a good' are indeed superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of deducing that a permanent blemish prior to consecration does not permit of an exchange taking effect.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י תנו רבנן לא יחליפנו בשל אחרים ולא ימיר אותו בשל עצמו ולכתוב לא יחליפנו ולא בעי לא ימיר אותו
10 [Scripture] might simply have written: 'He shall not alter it nor change it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have implied 'a good' i.e., an unblemished animal, since the text later on says 'for a bad' i.e., a blemished one.');"><sup>16</sup></span> for a bad or a bad for it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A bad' (unconsecrated blemished animal) must not be exchanged for it i.e., 'a good' (unblemished) or a bad (blemished) consecrated animal.');"><sup>17</sup></span> What need is there then for both the expressions 'a good'?
יא אי כתב הכי הוה אמינא תצא זו ותכנס זו הוא דתילקי אבל ממיר דתרווייהו קא מקדיש להו אימא לא לקי קא משמע לן
11 One 'a good' teaches us that even if one exchanges a good [animal] for a good [one], there is the punishment of lashes for substituting, and the other 'a good' teaches us that exchange takes effect only when the animal was 'good' originally, but where it was originally 'bad', exchange takes no effect. And whence will Abaye [derive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>18</sup></span> that it is forbidden to exchange a good for a good]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to him there is only one superfluous 'a good'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> - He holds that it is derived a minori. If where 'a good' [an unblemished hullin] is exchanged for 'a bad' [a blemished animal], in which case an improve is effected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a better animal is being substituted for the dedicated blemished animal.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יב האי בשל אחרים היכי דמי אי נימא בהמה דהקדש דידיה וחולין דעלמא מי מצי מקדיש (ויקרא כז, יד) איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש לה' אמר רחמנא מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו ואלא בהמה דהקדש דעלמא וחולין דידיה מי מתפיס בדבר שאינו שלו
12 the punishment of lashes is inflicted, how much more so should there be the punishment of lashes if one exchanges 'a good' for 'a good', which are alike [in holiness]! And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is an a minori conclusion, what need is there for an extra 'a good'?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - An offence established by inference [from minor to major] is not punishable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it must be stated positively and therefore the text is required to derive the case of one exchanging 'a good' for 'a good'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> And Abaye? - He can answer you thus: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that it is forbidden to exchange 'a good' for 'a good'.');"><sup>23</sup></span> is no conclusion from [minor to major, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יג לעולם בבהמה דהקדש דעלמא וחולין דידיה כגון דאמר מריה דבהמה דהקדש כל הרוצה להמיר בבהמתו יבא וימיר
13 is merely an intimation of a thing];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is naturally implied and there is no need for a specific interpretation.');"><sup>25</sup></span> for is the case of 'a good' [an unblemished consecrated animal] worse than the case of 'a bad' [blemished animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is forbidden to substitute an unblemished animal for a blemished one it is obvious that the same applies if the animal for which substitution is made is 'a good' (unblemished one) , for Scripture is only concerned that no exchange should be made with something which is holy. ubphkjh tk');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ממירין אחד בשנים ושנים באחד אחד במאה ומאה באחד ר"ש אומר אין ממירין אלא אחד באחד שנאמר (ויקרא כז, י) והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קדש מה הוא מיוחד אף היא מיוחדת
14 Our Rabbis taught: 'He shall not alter it'<a rel="footnote" href="#27"><sup>27</sup></a> [for hullin]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So R. Gershom. ;ukhj');"><sup>28</sup></span> belonging to others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word indicates that the exchange concerns two people.');"><sup>29</sup></span> 'Nor change it' [for hullin] belonging to himself.
טו <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא ה"מ דת"ר בהמה בבהמה מכאן שממירין אחד בב' וב' באחד אחד במאה ומאה באחד ר"ש אומר אין ממירין אלא אחד באחד שנאמר בהמה בבהמה ולא בהמה בבהמות ולא בהמות בבהמה
15 But let it write [simply]: 'He shall not alter it' and there will then be no need for the expression 'nor change it'? If it had written so, I might have said that where [the intention is for the origina animal] to lose its holiness and the [substituted one] to acquire holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the exchange does not succeed in removing holiness from the unblemished consecrated animal, he is nevertheless punished with lashes, for his intention was to release it from its sanctity.');"><sup>30</sup></span> there is the punishment of lashes, but in the case of exchanging [the consecrated animal for his own hullin], where [if he wishes] he can consecrate both,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So R. Gershom. The passage about 'others' is subsequently explained in the GEMARA:');"><sup>31</sup></span> I might have thought there is no punishment of lashes. [Scripture] therefore informs us [that it is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even if the substitution was for his own animal of hullin, he incurs the punishment of lashes.');"><sup>32</sup></span> As to the expression, '[for hullin] belonging to others', how is this to be understood?
טז אמר לו מצינו בהמות שקרויה בהמה שנאמר (יונה ד, יא) ובהמה רבה ור"ש בהמה רבה איקרי בהמה סתם לא איקרי
16 Shall we say [that i means] his own consecrated animal and hullin belonging to another? But can he consecrate [hullin in such circumstances]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it does not belong to him.');"><sup>33</sup></span> The Divine Law says: When a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 14.');"><sup>34</sup></span> Just as his house is his own possession, so everything<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to receive holiness.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יז וטעמא דר"ש משום בהמה הוא והא טעמא דר"ש משום הוא מה הוא מיוחד אף תמורה מיוחדת
17 must be in his possession! Again if the case then is of a consecration belonging to another and his own hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he said: This hullin of mine shall be a substitute for that man's dedication.');"><sup>36</sup></span> can one cause the substitution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cause to seize'.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יח מעיקרא אמר להן ר"ש מן והיה הוא ותמורתו וכי חזא דדרשי רבנן מבהמה בבהמה אמר להם איהו מהתם נמי מצינן למילף טעמא דידי
18 of a thing which is not his? - One can still maintain that the case is of a consecrated animal belonging to another person and his own hullin and when e.g. , the owner of the consecrated animals says: 'Whoever wishes to exchange with this animal may come and do so'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such circumstances the Biblical text informs us that the substitute is sacred although there is a prohibitory law against the act.');"><sup>38</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ONE CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR TWO [CONSECRATED ANIMALS],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying: This animal shall be exchanged for these two dedications.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
יט אמר ר"ל מודה ר"ש שממירין וחוזרין וממירין מ"ט קדושה ראשונה דהקדש להיכן הלכה ורבי יוחנן אמר כשם שאין ממירין ב' באחד כן אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין
19 AND WITH TWO [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL]; WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR A HUNDRED [CONSECRATED ANIMALS] AND WITH A HUNDRED [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL]; R'SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED EXCEPT WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL], FOR IT SAYS: 'THEN IT AND THE EXCHANGE THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY', THUS TEACHING US THAT JUST AS 'IT' [THE CONSECRATED ANIMAL] IS ONLY ONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text says: 'It', thus alluding to only one.');"><sup>40</sup></span> SO [ITS SUBSTITUTE] ALSO MUST BE ONLY ONE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence is this proved? - Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says:] 'Beast for beast'. Hence we infer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the word behemah (beast) is repeated (Sh. Mck.) .');"><sup>41</sup></span>
כ תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן תניא כוותיה דר"ל תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן כשם שאין ממירין אחד בשנים כך אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין תניא כוותיה דר"ל יכול כשם שאר"ש שאין ממירין שנים באחד כך אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין ת"ל והיה הוא ותמורתו אפילו במאה
20 that one can effect an exchange with one [hullin] for two [consecrated animals] and with two [hullin] for one [consecrated animal]; with one [hullin] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and with a hundred [hullin] for one [consecrated animal]. R'Simeon, however, says: One cannot effect exchange except with one [hullin] for one [consecrated animal], since it Says: 'Beast for beast', [implying] but not beast for beasts or beasts for beast. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disputants of R. Simeon.');"><sup>42</sup></span> said to him: We find [in the Scriptures] that beasts are also called behemah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term used in the text denoting beast.');"><sup>43</sup></span> since it says: And also much cattle [behemah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jonah IV, 11.');"><sup>44</sup></span> And what does R'Simeon say to this? - Many animals are described as behemah rabah [much], but not simply as behemah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word behemah therefore by itself denotes only one animal.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
כא בעי רבי אבין לדברי האומר אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והמיר בו
21 But is R'Simeon's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why he holds in the Mishnah that exchange can only be effected with one hullin for one consecrated animal.');"><sup>46</sup></span> because of the expression 'beast'? Is not the reason of R'Simeon because of the expression 'it', [his reasoning being] just as 'it' is only one, so its [substitute] must be only one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>47</sup></span> - At first, R'Simeon said to them that his reason was based on the text, 'Then it and the exchange thereof'. When he saw, however, that the Rabbis interpreted the text 'beast for beast', he said to then,: 'I also can derive the reason for my ruling from the same source Said Resh Lakish: R'Simeon agrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he holds in the Mishnah that exchange cannot be effected except with one hullin for one consecrated animal.');"><sup>48</sup></span> that one can effect an exchange repeatedly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same dedicated animal can be exchanged again and again with different animals. Lit., 'one has power to exchange and again to exchange'.');"><sup>49</sup></span> What is the reason? - For where has the holiness of the first dedicated animal gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that another animal should be able to receive holiness, even up to a thousand, since Scripture declares: 'Then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy'.');"><sup>50</sup></span> But R'Johanan says: Just as one cannot effect an exchange with two hullin for one [consecration], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly [with the same animal]. There is a teaching in agreement with R'Johanan; there is a teaching in agreement with Resh Lakish.' There is a teaching in agreement with R'Johanan': Just as one cannot effect an exchange with one hullin for two [consecrations], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. There is a teaching in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish: One might have thought that just as R'Simeon holds that one cannot effect an exchange with two [hullin] for one [consecrated animal], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. The text therefore states: 'Then it and the exchange thereof', implying, even for a hundred [animals of hullin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The substitutions are sacred.');"><sup>51</sup></span> R'Abin asked: How is it according to the authority who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 13b.');"><sup>52</sup></span> that one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly, if he set aside a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and made an exchange for it,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter