Temurah 26
Rabbi says: And for what purpose now is tithe specially mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subject to the law of exchange, since all dedications are included in the law of exchange. For Rabbi holds that for declaring a private offering subject to the law of exchange there is no need for a special mention of tithe, since Scripture says, 'he shall etc.' in the singular. That the dedication must be one for the altar is also inferred from the word korban mentioned in connection with the law of exchange. We therefore see that Rabbi holds that dedications for the Temple repairs are not called korban. Also as regards R. Simeon's exception from the law of exchange of the case of a burnt-offering brought from the surpluses of sacrificial appropriations because dedications must be something which come obligatorily, Rabbi will maintain that surpluses can go for communal offerings. The ruling also concerning partners and congregations not being able to effect exchange can be inferred from the text, He shall not alter, etc., since it is couched in the singular number (Rashi) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
In order to infer the cases of [one which became tithe through] a change of name<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where e.g., one called the tenth animal the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, the law being that both are holy and are offered up as peace-offerings. We derive this from the text: 'And all the tithe'. The animal is therefore not actually tithe but has been named tithe in error.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
and the exchange of actual tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one put a hullin alongside tithe and said that the first shall be exchanged for the latter, the exchange in this case having effect. There is need for the special mention of tithe, for otherwise I might have said that there is no exchange in this case, as the rendering of an animal tithe by a change of name is itself an anomaly and therefore one cannot go beyond it (Rashi) .');"><sup>4</sup></span>
an exchange of actual tithe has effect both on what is fit [unblemished], and what is not fit [blemished],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like tithe which has effect on blemished animals so far as to restrict the killing of them in the market place and weighing the flesh by the pound.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
whereas a change of name [of tithe] has effect only on what is fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To receive holiness, like other dedications which do not receive holiness where the blemish was prior to the dedication.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Because the Divine Law includes the case of that which became tithe through a change of name, should it therefore be inferior [in holiness]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then does not holiness have effect on a blemished animal in this connection? There is all the more reason that the case of tithe through change of name should be more strict and take effect even when the animal is blemished.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Said R'Nahman B'Isaac to Raba: According to R'Simeon who says: [Exchange is effected with] something which comes obligatorily, is it only an obligatory burnt-offering that can effect exchange but not a freewill burnt-offering? - He answered him: A freewill burnt-offering also; since he took upon himself [to offer it up],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he said 'Let this, etc.'.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
is necessary only for the case of a burnt-offering which comes from surpluses [of sacrificial appropriations].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where e.g., one separated money for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and some of it was left over and with this money we purchased a burnt-offering.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
If he holds with the authority who says that the surpluses go for freewill gifts of the congregation, then actually exchange cannot be effected, since a congregation cannot effect exchange! - Then R'Simeon will hold with the authority who says that the surpluses go for freewill gifts of individuals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owners themselves bring a burnt-offering as a gift but not to carry out an obligation.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
first animal then became blemished and he redeemed it for another which became lost], and he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, and the lost animal was then found and was [automatically] transformed into a burnt-offering, what is the ruling as regards making an exchange with it [the burnt-offering]?
It can hardly be that of R'Simeon, for you say that R'Simeon holds that a burnt-offering which comes from surpluses cannot effect exchange! - R'Abin's inquiry is thus: If you can find a Tanna who holds R'Simeon's opinion who says that one cannot exchange repeatedly and holds also R'Eliezer's opinion who says that a burnt-offering which comes from the surpluses can effect exchange, what of exchanging it again?
With reference to two bodies [different animals] and one kind of holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one separated a guilt-offering in order to obtain atonement and exchanged it and then it became blemished and was redeemed for another. The second animal, although another body, possesses the same kind of holiness as the first, i.e., the holiness of a guilt-offering.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
what is the ruling? And if you adopt the opinion that one kind of holiness cannot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>28</sup></span> [effect exchange again], what is the ruling in the case o two kinds of holiness and one body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one were atoned for through another guilt-offering and the first lost guilt-offering was then found and transformed into a burnt-offering. Thus here there are two kinds of holiness with the same body. hgch, ueh,');"><sup>29</sup></span> Let this question remain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' is the term of the Jerusalem Talmud and has the same meaning as in the Babylonian Talmud.');"><sup>30</sup></span> MISHNAH