Temurah 18

Chapter 18

א והומם וחללו על אחר ונתכפר באשם אחר וניתק לעולה מהו שימיר בו

1 and it became blemished and he redeemed it for another1

ב אמר אביי מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אי ב' גופים וקדושה אחת תיבעי ליה בלא מתכפר

2 [which became lost], and he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, and [the lost animal was then found] and it was [automatically] transformed into a burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law is that an animal dedicated for a guilt-offering whose owner has otherwise obtained atonement, is usually destined to be used as a communal burnt-offering.');">2 What is the ruling as regards making an exchange for it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do we say that as an exchange took place for the first guilt-offering, there cannot be another exchange made for the second guilt-offering now found, for it would be like making a number of exchanges for the same animal, which according to the view of the authority on whose behalf we are propounding this question, is not permissible; or, since the second guilt-offering is another animal altogether and it receives a different kind of holiness, do we say that there can therefore be an exchange made, for in the case of the first animal it was a guilt-offering which was exchanged and we are considering now the exchange of a burnt-offering.');">3 Said Abaye: What is [R'Abin's] inquiry?

ג אי ב' קדושות וגוף אחד תיבעי ליה בלא הומם

ד ור' אבין חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה ואם תימצי לומר שני גופין וקדושה אחת לא משום דבההיא קדושה הא איתמר בה חדא זימנא שני גופין ושתי קדושות מהו תיקו

4 If it [the inquiry] is concerning two bodies and one kind of holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the question will then be: Shall we say that since there is another body i.e., a different animal, therefore it can be exchanged or, perhaps, since there is the same holiness, there can be no further exchange.');">4 why not put the question without stating that he obtains atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let R. Abin state his inquiry as follows: One separated his guilt-offering and exchanged it and the first animal became blemished and was redeemed for another. What of exchanging this last animal? Shall we say since it is a different body, i.e., a different animal, there can therefore be a second exchange, or perhaps since the last animal comes in place of the first and has the same kind of holiness, both being a guilt-offering, there can be no exchange again.');">5 If the inquiry is concerning two kinds of holiness and one body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one set aside a guilt-offering and exchanged it, and the first animal was lost and he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, and the first guilt-offering was then found and is now regarded as a burnt-offering. Here we have, with reference to the first animal, one body with two kinds of holiness, and the question is, since there is here only one body, can exchange be effected again.');">6

ה לישנא אחרינא בעי ר' אבין לרבי יוחנן דאמר אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והמיר בו והומם וחללו על אחר מהו שיחזור וימיר

5 why not put the question without stating that the first animal became blemished?7 - And R'Abin?8 - His question is really in the form of one inquiry arising out of another [as follows]: And if you will adopt the opinion that there can be no [exchange] in a case of two bodies and one kind of holiness, since [an animal] has already been once exchanged in that holiness, what of two bodies and two kinds of holiness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When e.g., the second guilt-offering was lost and he obtained atonement through a different animal, the second guilt-offering becoming a burnt-offering after being found. What of the second guilt-offering as regards exchanging? Do we say since it was brought in virtue of the first, there can therefore be no exchange, or, as it is a different animal with a different kind of holiness, there can be exchange?');">9

ו נתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיחזיר וימיר

6 - Let it stand undecided.

ז אמר אביי הי קא מיבעיא ליה קדושה אחרת באותו הגוף לא ניבעי הומם וחללו באחר אי גוף אחד באותה קדושה לא ניבעי נתכפר באשם אחר

7 Another version: R'Abin inquired, According to the opinion of R'Johanan who holds that one has no power to exchange repeatedly [the same dedicated animal], if he set aside a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and exchanged it, and after [the first animal] became blemished he redeemed it for another, what is the ruling as regards exchanging again [this second guilt-offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do we say that as it was brought in the place of the first guilt-offering, as the first animal has once been exchanged, there can be no further exchange, or else, as it is a different animal, there can be a further exchange?');">10 Or,11 if he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering]12 and the [first guilt-offering] was transformed into a burnt-offering,13

ח ורבי אבין חדא מגו חדא קא מיבעיא ליה הומם וחללו על אחר מהו שיחזור וימיר מי אמרינן באשם ראשון הוא דאין חוזר וממיר אבל בגוף אחד אע"ג דקדיש אותה קדושה חוזר וממיר או דלמא כל באותה קדושה אין חוזר וממיר

8 what is the ruling as regards changing it again?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This burnt-offering. Now according to this version there will not be any reference to two kinds of holiness and two bodies, and there will really be here two inquiries (Rashi.)');">14 Said Abaye: What is [R'Abin's main inquiry]? If as regards [the exchange] of another kind of holiness but in the same body, then there is no need to mention that he redeemed it [for another].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would be sufficient to formulate the inquiry as follows: He set aside a guilt-offering which he exchanged, the first animal became lost and he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering. The first guilt-offering was then found and automatically became a burnt-offering, and the question was as regards making exchange again with the same animal which has now received another kind of holiness.');">15 If as regards [the exchange] of another body in the same kind of holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether there can be a further exchange of the second animal possessing the same kind of holiness as the first, i.e., when the guilt-offering was exchanged, became blemished and was redeemed for another.');">16

ט ואם תימצא לומר הדין גוף אחד כיון דבאותה קדושה קאים אין חוזר וממיר אלא נתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה ראשון לעולה מהו שיחזיר וימיר בו

9 then there is no need to mention the atonement through another guilt-offering.

י מי אמרינן כי אין ממיר וחוזר וממיר הני מילי אותו הגוף באותה קדושה אבל אותו הגוף בקדושה אחרת חוזר וממיר או דלמא אף על קדושה אחרת כיון דאותו הגוף הוא אין חוזר וממיר תיקו

10 And R'Abin? - His [question] is really one inquiry arising out of another: If [the guilt-offering] became blemished and he exchanged it and redeemed it for another, what is the ruling as regards exchanging it again? Do we say that there is no further exchange only with regard to the first guilt-offering but with a separate body [animal], though it remains in the same kind of holiness [of a guilt-offering], there can again be an exchange? Or, perhaps, all animals in the same kind of holiness cannot be exchanged again? And if you will adopt the opinion, that since this other body remains in the same holiness, there can be no further exchange, then if he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering and the first guilt-offering was transformed into a burnt-offering, what is the ruling as regards exchanging it again?

יא א"ר יהושע בן לוי הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש ואין הקדש שני מוסיף חומש

11 Do we say that we hold that one cannot exchange again only with reference to the same body [animal] in the same kind of holiness,17 but the same body possessing another kind of holiness can be changed again?

יב אמר רב פפא מאי טעמא דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית מקדיש ולא המתפיס

12 Or, perhaps, although there is another kind of holiness, since it is the same body, there can be no exchange again? - Let it remain undecided. Said R'Joshua B'Levi:18

יג בעי רבי אבין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והומם והוסיף עליו חומש וחללו חבירו ונתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש

13 One adds a fifth19 for the first dedication but not for the second dedication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When e.g., the first animal became maimed and he redeemed it for another, this second animal being described as a second dedication. A substitute animal would be a second dedication.');">20

יד אמר אביי מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אי שני גופין וקדושה אחת קא מיבעיא ליה תיבעי ליה בלא נתכפר

14 Said R'Papa: What is the reason of R'Joshua B'Levi? Scripture says: And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house then he shall add the fifth part of the money,21 the text saying, 'he that sanctified', implying, but not one who causes holiness [to an animal through another dedicated animal].22

טו אי שתי קדושות וגוף אחד קא מיבעיא ליה תיבעי בלא הומם

15 R'Abin inquired: If one set aside a guilt-offering to obtain atonement and [after] it became blemished [he redeemed it for another animal], added a fifth and obtained atonement through another guilt-offering,23

טז ורבי אבין חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה אם תימצא לומר שני גופין וקדושה אחת לא משום דבההיא קדושה איתוסף בה חדא זימנא חומש שני גופין ושתי קדושות מאי תיקו

16 and [the first guilt-offering was transformed into a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the rule that if an animal has been dedicated for a guilt-offering and the owner has obtained atonement through another, the original animal is changed into a burnt-offering.');">24 what of adding a fifth to it?25 - Said Abaye: What is [R'Abin's] main inquiry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the present, R. Abin's words have no reference to the case of two bodies and two kinds of holiness, but he divides his inquiry into two parts, the first part being where there are two bodies and one kind of holiness, and the other, where he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, i.e. where the first guilt-offering was not maimed but was lost and the owner obtained atonement through another guilt-offering. The first guilt-offering was then transformed into a burnt-offering and we have, as a result, two kinds of holiness but in one body (Rashi) . Therefore Abaye's query is: What is etc.');">26

יז לישנא אחרינא בעי רבי אבין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והומם וחללו על אחר והוסיף חומש נתכפרו באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש

17 If the inquiry is [as regards adding a fifth for the redemption] of two bodies and one kind of holiness, then why not make the inquiry without mentioning that he obtained atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through another guilt-offering. He need only state that the first guilt-offering became blemished, he redeemed it for another and added a fifth in redeeming, since there can be no redemption of an unblemished animal which is fit for the altar. The second animal in turn became blemished and the inquiry will therefore be as follows: Do we say that since the second animal possesses the same kind of holiness as the first, there cannot be the addition of the second fifth in redeeming, as it is a second dedication? Or, perhaps, since they are two separate bodies');">27 And if the inquiry is [as regards] two kinds of holiness and one body, then why not formulate an inquiry without mentioning that [the first animal] became blemished?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it became lost, and the case here is where the guilt-offering became lost, and he set aside another guilt-offering and obtained atonement through it. The first animal then becomes a burnt-offering. What is then the ruling? Do we say it is a second dedication, since the owner obtained atonement through another and this first animal is considered as subsidiary to it and, consequently, if it became blemished, there will be no need for the adding of a fifth in redeeming, or not?');">28 And R'Abin? - His inquiry is really one question arising out of another.

יח אמר אביי הדין קא מיבעיא ליה אי קדושה אחרת באותו הגוף קא מיבעיא ליה לא ניבעי ליה הומם אי גוף אחד באותה קדושה כו'

18 If you will adopt the opinion that there is no fifth added [when redeeming] in the case of two bodies and one kind of holiness, since a fifth has already been once added in that holiness, what is the ruling as regards two bodies and two kinds of holiness? - Let it stand undecided. Another version: R'Abin inquired: If one set aside a guilt-offering to obtain atonement through it and afte it became blemished, he redeemed it for another, [what29 is the ruling as regards] adding a fifth?30 [Or,]31

יט וחללו על אחר מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש מי אמרי' באשם קמא הוא דמוסיף אבל בגוף אחד אע"ג דקאים באותה קדושה [אין] מוסיף חומש

19 if he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, and [the first animal being found] was transformed into a burnt-offering,32 what is the ruling as regards adding a fifth?33 - Said Abaye: Which is the main inquiry [of R'Abin]? If his inquiry relates to another kind of holiness but in the same body, then what need is there to mention that the [first] guilt-offering became blemished [and he redeemed it for another]? If it relates to [another] body in the same holiness, [then34 what need is there to mention that he was atoned for through another guilt-offering]? And R'Abin? - His inquiry is really one question arising out of another question [as follows]: If it became blemished and he redeemed it for another, what is the ruling as regards adding a fifth?35 Is it only in redeeming the first guilt-offering that one does not add a fifth but in the case [another]36 body, although it remains in the same kind of holiness, one adds37 a fifth [in redeeming it, if blemished]?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter