Temurah 26

Chapter 26

א ודבר שאינו בא בשותפות

1 and something which does not come through a partnership.1

ב רבי אומר למה יצאת מעשר מעתה לידון בתמורת שמו ובתמורת גופו

2 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) .');">2 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.');">3

ג לומר לך תמורת שמו קריבה תמורת גופו אינה קריבה תמורת שמו נגאלת תמורת גופו אינה נגאלת

3 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) .');">4

ד תמורת גופו חלה על דבר הראוי ועל דבר שאינו ראוי ותמורת שמו אינה חלה אלא על דבר הראוי בלבד

4 [And further] to teach you that that which becomes tithe through a change of name is offered up,5

ה אמרי משום דרבי רחמנא דאית ביה תמורת שמו איגרועי איגרע אין דאמרינן מאי דרבי רבי ומאי דלא רבי לא רבי

5 whereas the exchange of actual tithe is not offered up;6 that which becomes tithe through a change of name is redeemed,7 whereas the exchange of actual tithe is not redeemed;8 an exchange of actual tithe has effect both on what is fit [unblemished], and what is not fit [blemished],9

ו והא מהיכא תיתי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע משום דהוה דבר הבא לידון בדבר החדש ואין בו אלא חידושו בלבד

6 whereas a change of name [of tithe] has effect only on what is fit.10 The question was asked:11 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.');">12

ז אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא לרבי שמעון דאמר דבר הבא בחובה עולת חובה היא דעבדה תמורה הא עולת נדבה לא אמר ליה עולת נדבה נמי כיון דקבלה עליה עבדה תמורה

7 - Yes, for we say what [the Law] has included is included, but what it has not included, is not included. And whence do you derive this?13 - Said R'Huna the son of R'Joshua: Because it14 is made the subject of a fresh statement, and therefore we do not go beyond the anomalous feature.15

ח ולא נצרכה אלא לעולה הבאה מן המותרות

ט מאי קסבר אי קסבר לה כמאן דאמר מותרות לנדבת צבור אזלי פשיטא דלא עבדה תמורה הא אין תמורה בצבור

9 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],16 it can effect exchange, and [R'Simeon's teaching]17

י אלא רבי שמעון סבירא ליה כמאן דאמר מותרות לנדבת יחיד אזלי מאן שמעת ליה האי סברא רבי אליעזר הא שמעינן ליה בהדיא דעבדה תמורה דתניא עולה הבאה מן המותרות עושה תמורה דברי רבי אליעזר

10 is necessary only for the case of a burnt-offering which comes from surpluses [of sacrificial appropriations].18 Now what is his view? 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.19 Now from whom have we heard this opinion?

יא רבי שמעון סבר לה כותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא דרבי אליעזר סבר עולה הבאה מן המותרות עושה תמורה ואיהו סבר אין עושה תמורה

11 From R'Eliezer.20 But have we not heard him explicitly [state] that exchange is effected?21 For it has been taught: A burnt-offering which came from the surpluses can effect exchange. This is the teaching of R'Eliezer! - R'Simeon agrees with him on one point and differs from him on another.

יב אי הכי דבעיא רבי אבין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והמיר בו ונתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיחזור וימיר בו

12 [He22 agrees with him on one point, that surpluses are applied to gifts for individuals],23

יג אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דר"ש הא אמרת רבי שמעון סבירא ליה עולה הבאה מן המותרות אין עושה תמורה

13 and differs from him on another point, for R'Eliezer holds: A burnt-offering brought from surpluses can effect exchange, whereas R'Simeon holds it cannot effect exchange. If so,24 as regards the inquiry of R'Abin:25

יד רבי אבין הכי קמיבעיא ליה אי משכחת תנא דקאי כר"ש דאמר אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין וס"ל כרבי אליעזר דאמר עולה הבאה מן המותרות עושה תמורה מהו שיחזור וימיר בו

14 If he set apart a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and made an exchange for it, and [the26 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]?

טו בשני גופין וקדושה אחת מאי

15 Whose opinion does this inquiry presuppose?

טז ואם תימצא לומר קדושה אחת (או לא) אלא שתי קדושות וגוף אחד מאי תיבעי

16 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.');">27

יז <big>הדרן עלך הכל ממירין</big>

17 what is the ruling? And if you adopt the opinion that one kind of holiness cannot28 [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,');">29 Let this question remain.30 MISHNAH

Previous Chapter Next Chapter