Temurah 3
ותיסברא הכל ממירין לכתחילה
You say: ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE, implying that it is [permissible to exchange in the first instance] and [then it says]: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, implying, only after it has been done?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the exchange effective, but not that it is directly permissible.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אדקשיא לך ממתניתין תיקשי לך קרא דכתיב
- But how can you understand it that ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE in the first instance! In that case, instead of bringing a contradiction from the Mishnah, you could rather bring it from the Scriptural verse, since it says: He shall not alter it nor change it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו
Rab Judah therefore said: What [the Mishnah] means is this: ALL PERSONS CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the substituted animal becomes sacred whilst the original animal retains its sanctity.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יליף תחילת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחילת הקדש יורש אינו ממיר
from the case of a final act in the dedication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that of laying on of hands on the animal's head, which act is prior to sacrificing it.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
חד קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים
- Three times the expression his offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if his offering be a sacrifice of a peace-offering (Lev. III, 1) . And if his offering for a sacrifice unto the Lord be of the flock (Ibid. 6) . And if he offer a lamb for his offering (Ibid. 7) . And in each text the law of 'laying on of hands' is laid down.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ולר' מאיר דאמר יורש סומך והכתיב קרבנו
one 'his offering' but not his father's dedication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah therefore deduces from here that an heir cannot lay hands on his father's dedication.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ההוא מיבעי ליה
But as for R'Meir, who rules that an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication], surely 'his offering' is written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus intimating that an heir cannot lay hands on his father's dedication.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
לרבות כל בעלי חוברין לסמיכה
- He needs this in order to include partners in a sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for example, two or three people share one sacrifice, we apply to each partner the text 'his offering' and thus they all have to lay hands on the animal prior to killing it.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
לעולם אית ליה וקרבן עובד כוכבים וקרבן חבירו מחד קרא נפקא דאייתר ליה חד לבעלי חוברין לסמיכה
- He does not hold that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is of the opinion that an offering brought by partners does not require the laying on of hands.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
אמר לך
Because their sacrifice is not designated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As belonging specifically to any one of the partners. Consequently R. Judah can still maintain that the text 'his offering' excludes a father's dedication from the need of the laying on of hands.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבו' היורש
Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say that R'Judah may still be of the opinion [that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands] but he derives the cases both of the sacrifice of a gentile and a fellow's sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being excluded from the laying on of hands');"><sup>24</sup></span> from the one text.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'his offering' implies the exclusion of the sacrifice by an agent, whether Jew or gentile, from the law of laying on of hands. For it cannot be said to be solely for the purpose of excluding the sacrifice of a gentile from the laying on of hands, since this is already derived from another Biblical text as explained in Men. 93a.');"><sup>25</sup></span> There is left over therefore one text, from which we derive that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there still remains a third text of 'his offering' to imply that laying on of hands is not required in connection with a father's dedication, since a father's sacrifice might naturally be regarded as one's own and consequently subject to the laying on of hands. There is need therefore for a special text to inform us that this is not so.');"><sup>26</sup></span> And as to R'Meir, who rules that an heir can exchange [with his father's dedication] what is his reason? - He can tell you: [Scripture says:] And if he shall at all change,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'changing he shall change'. The reduplicated expression enables us to infer that an heir's exchange of his father's sacrifice is effective.');"><sup>27</sup></span> to intimate that an heir can change.