Temurah 25

Chapter 25

א שלש שדות ושתי מענות וכמה מלא מענה מאה אמה כדתניא החורש את הקבר עושה בית הפרס מלא מענה מאה אמה
1 Three fields<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The field actually containing the grave which was ploughed and the field on the one side of the grave area and on the other side, i.e., either east and west or north and south, as it is not customary to plough on all the four sides of a field but only east and west or north and south.');"><sup>1</sup></span> and two furrows' length.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the field containing the grave is entirely unclean but the other two fields, either on the east and west or north and south are only unclean to the extent of two furrows' length. For the Rabbis have estimated that this is the distance the plough in the field is capable of moving the bones into another field.');"><sup>2</sup></span> How much is a furrow's length? A hundred cubits, as it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Oh. XVII.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב ואין תרומה אחר תרומה כו' מתניתין מני ר"ע היא דתנן השותפין שתרמו זה אחר זה רבי אליעזר אומר תרומת שניהם תרומה
2 He who ploughs a grave creates a beth ha-peras<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A grave area.');"><sup>4</sup></span> the length of a furrow. And how much is the length of a furrow? A hundred cubits. [THE SEPARATION OF] TERUMAH CANNOT BE REPEATED etc. Our Mishnah is the opinion of R'Akiba. For we have learnt: If partners separated terumah one after the other, R'Eliezer says: The terumah of both of them is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both have a share in it. Lit., 'the terumah of both is terumah'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> whereas R'Akiba says: The terumah of both of them is not valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even of the first one, for since the second proceeded to tithe again, he shows thereby that he was not satisfied with the tithing of his partner. Therefore the tithing of the first partner was not with the consent and approval of the second partner. The same applies to the tithing of the second.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג ר"ע אומר אין תרומת שניהם תרומה וחכמים אומרים אם תרם הראשון כשיעור אין תרומת השני תרומה ואם לא תרם כשיעור תרומת השני תרומה
3 The Sages however say: If the first of the partners separated terumah according to the right quantity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One in fifty.');"><sup>7</sup></span> then the terumah of the second one is not valid. But if the first one did not separate terumah according to the right quantity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he was niggardly in his tithing, giving less than one in fifty, i.e., one in sixty.');"><sup>8</sup></span> then the terumah of the second [partner] is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas according to R. Akiba in either case the terumah is not valid, and our Mishnah too, as it does not specify whether the terumah was given generously by the first partner or otherwise, must be the view of R. Akiba.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד ואין תמורה עושה תמורה כו' מאי טעמא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) ותמורתו ולא תמורת תמורתו
4 AN EXCHANGE CANNOT BE USED TO EFFECT ANOTHER EXCHANGE etc. What is the reason? Since Scripture says: 'And the exchange thereof',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10.');"><sup>10</sup></span> implying, but not the exchange of an exchange.
ה ואין הולד עושה תמורה דאמר קרא הוא הוא ולא ולד
5 THE OFFSPRING OF A DEDICATED ANIMAL CANNOT EFFECT AN EXCHANGE. Since Scripture says: 'It' (0) implying, it can effect exchange but not the offspring of a dedicated animal.
ו ר' יהודה אומר הולד עושה תמורה דאמר קרא יהיה לרבות את הולד ורבנן לרבות שוגג כמזיד
6 R'JUDAH SAYS: THE OFFSPRING OF A DEDICATED ANIMAL EFFECTS AN EXCHANGE. For Scripture says: Shall be,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10.');"><sup>10</sup></span> thus including the offspring of a dedicated animal. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What will they do with the text 'shall be'?');"><sup>11</sup></span> [The object of the text is] to include [an exchange] in error as [possessing the same validity as a] deliberate [exchange].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one intends to effect an exchange for a black animal and he exchanged the dedicated animal in error for a white one, the exchange is valid, unlike the case of dedication, where if one intended to dedicate a black animal and he dedicated in error a white one, the dedication is not valid.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> העופות והמנחות אין עושין תמורה שלא נאמר אלא בהמה הציבור והשותפין אין עושין תמורה שנאמר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר יחיד עושה תמורה ואין הצבור והשותפין עושין תמורה קדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה
7 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BIRDS AND MEAL-OFFERINGS DO NOT EFFECT EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One cannot make an exchange for a dedicated bird or meal-offering.');"><sup>13</sup></span> SINCE [THE LAW OF] EXCHANGE ONLY APPLIES TO AN ANIMAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture says: And if he shall at all exchange beast for beast.');"><sup>14</sup></span> A CONGREGATION OR PARTNERS CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE, SINCE IT SAYS: HE SHALL NOT ALTER IT NOR CHANGE IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>15</sup></span> THUS IMPLYING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'he' etc.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ח אמר ר"ש והרי מעשר בכלל היה ולמה יצא
8 THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN EFFECT EXCHANGE BUT A CONGREGATION OR PARTNERS CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE. ONE CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE WITH [OBJECTS]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 31a. Another version is: Dedications for Temple repairs.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט לומר לך מה מעשר קרבן יחיד יצאו קרבנות צבור ומה מעשר קרבן מזבח יצאו קרבנות בדק הבית
9 DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in connection with 'exchange' Scripture says korban ('offering') and dedications for Temple repairs are not described as korban.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר יכול יהו קדשי בדק הבית עושין תמורה ת"ל (ויקרא כז, ט) קרבן מי שנקראו קרבן יצאו קדשי בדק הבית שלא נקראו קרבן
10 SAID R'SIMEON:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon holds that a dedication for Temple repairs is called korban and therefore there is need for a text to exclude dedications for Temple repairs from the law of exchange.');"><sup>19</sup></span> NOW IS NOT TITHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Animals tithed.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא ולא והתניא אי (ויקרא יז, ד) קרבן שומע אני אפילו קדשי בדק הבית שנקראו קרבן כענין שנאמר (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה' וגו'
11 [ALREADY] IMPLIED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the word 'beast' used in connection with the law of exchange.');"><sup>21</sup></span> FOR WHAT PURPOSE THEN IS TITHE SPECIALLY MENTIONED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being capable of effecting exchange.');"><sup>22</sup></span> IT IS IN ORDER TO MAKE A COMPARISON WITH IT AND TO TEACH US THAT JUST AS TITHE IS A PRIVATE OFFERING, [SO ALL EXCHANGE OF DEDICATIONS MUST BE A PRIVATE OFFERING] THUS EXCLUDING CONGREGATIONAL OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Partners are also excluded, since partners are exempt from the law of tithing animals.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יב ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו כל הבא אל פתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו משום שחוטי חוץ וכל שאינו בא לפתח אהל מועד אין חייבין עליו משום שחוטי חוץ אלמא איקרו קרבן
12 AND JUST AS TITHE IS A DEDICATION FOR THE ALTAR, [SO EXCHANGES CAN BE EFFECTED ONLY WITH DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR] THUS EXCLUDING OFFERINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIRS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis have taught: One might think that one can effect exchange with dedications for Temple repairs?
יג אמר רבי חנינא לא קשיא הא ר"ש הא רבנן לר"ש איקרי קרבן לרבנן לא איקרי קרבן
13 The text however says: Korban<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if it be a beast whereof men bring an offering (korban) , Lev. XXVII, 9.');"><sup>24</sup></span> [offering] implying that [exchange only applies] to what is called korban, thus excluding dedications for Temple repairs which are not called korban. And are not [dedications for Temple repairs called korban]?
יד ולא והכתיב (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה' קרבן ה' איקרי קרבן לה' לא איקרי
14 Has it not been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6b.');"><sup>25</sup></span> If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even of the first one, for since the second proceeded to tithe again, he shows thereby that he was not satisfied with the tithing of his partner. Therefore the tithing of the first partner was not with the consent and approval of the second partner. The same applies to the tithing of the second.');"><sup>6</sup></span> you interpret the word korban, I can understand it as including even dedications for Temple repairs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Usually blemished animals unfit for the altar, which yet are described as korban.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טו ת"ר (ויקרא כז, לג) לא יבקר בין טוב לרע ולא ימירנו למה נאמר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע וגו'
15 which are called korban, since it says: And we have brought the Lord's offering etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 50.');"><sup>28</sup></span> ? The text however states: And bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
טז לפי שנאמר לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו משמע קרבן יחיד קרבן צבור וקרבן מזבח וקרבן בדק הבית ת"ל לא יבקר
16 [We therefore say as follows:] In respect of anything which comes to the door of the tent of meeting, one is guilty [of the transgression] of slaughtering dedicated animals without the Temple court, but in respect of anything which does not come to the door of the tent of meeting, one is not guilty [of the transgression] of slaughtering dedicated animals without the Temple court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And dedications for Temple repairs are usually such animals which are unfit for the door of the tent of meeting.');"><sup>30</sup></span> Consequently we see that [dedications for Temple repairs], are called korban!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the view in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יז אמר ר"ש והרי מעשר בכלל היה ולמה יצא לומר לך מה מעשר קרבן יחיד וקרבן מזבח ודבר שבא בחובה ודבר שאינו בשותפות אף כל קרבן יחיד וקרבן מזבח ודבר שבא בחובה
17 - Said R'Hanina: This offers no difficulty. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha just quoted.');"><sup>32</sup></span> is the opinion of R'Simeon and that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The MISHNAH:');"><sup>33</sup></span> is the opinion of the [Rabbis].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another version has here the name of Rabbi, who will hold that the name of korban does not apply to dedications for Temple repairs. Our Mishnah will therefore be entirely the opinion of R. Simeon and the reason why dedications for Temple repairs do not effect exchange will not be because of the word korban but as R. Simeon explains subsequently in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>34</sup></span> According to R'Simeon, dedications for Temple repairs are called korban and according to the Rabbis they are not called korban. And are not [dedications for Temple repairs called it korban]? Surely it is written: And we have brought the Lord's korban [offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 50. We see therefore that the word korban applies also to objects other than dedications for the altar.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - [Dedications for Temple repairs] are called the Lord's offering, but they are not called an offering for the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would have implied an offering in the ordinary sense, i.e., a sacrifice for the altar.');"><sup>36</sup></span> Our Rabbis have taught: He shall not search whether it be good or bad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev: XXVII, 33.');"><sup>37</sup></span> Now why is this mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage refers to animal tithe.');"><sup>38</sup></span> Has not Scripture already said: He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10, in connection with the law of exchange, thus implying that all dedications including animal tithe effect exchange.');"><sup>39</sup></span> ? Because it says: 'He shall not alter it nor change it', implying either a private offering or a congregational offering, either a dedication for the altar or a dedication for Temple repairs, and [that which is brought obligatorily].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these effect exchange. Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>40</sup></span> [In order to avoid this interpretation] Scripture says: 'He shall not search'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason therefore why the text again mentions the law of exchange in connection with animal tithe is in order to compare all other exchanges to animal tithe, as R. Simeon explains.');"><sup>41</sup></span> Said R'Simeon: Now was not tithe implied? And for what purpose was tithe specially mentioned? In order to teach you that just as tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which exchange is effected.');"><sup>42</sup></span> is a private offering, a dedication for the altar, something which comes obligatorily and something which does not come through a partnership, so all [animals exchanged] must be a private offering, a dedication for the altar, something which comes obligatorily
Previous ChapterNext Chapter