Temurah 3

Chapter 3

א מתני׳ <big><strong>הכל</strong></big> ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים לא שאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים
1 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This unconsecrated animal for that consecrated animal.');"><sup>1</sup></span> MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN; NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture says: Nor chance it (Lev. XXVII, 10) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא גופא קשיא אמרת הכל ממירין לכתחילה והדר תני לא שאדם רשאי להמיר (אלא שאם המיר מומר) דיעבד
2 BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus both animals become sacred.');"><sup>3</sup></span> AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For violating the prohibitory law of 'nor change it'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[The Mishnah] contains a contradiction in itself.
ג ותיסברא הכל ממירין לכתחילה אדקשיא לך ממתניתין תיקשי לך קרא דכתיב (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו
3 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> - 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> 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>
ד אלא אמר רב יהודה הכי קתני הכל מתפיסין בתמורה אחד אנשים ואחד נשים לא שאדם רשאי להמיר שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים
4 MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the exchange by a woman renders the substituted animal sacred.');"><sup>8</sup></span> NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED, AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. What additional case is included by [the word] ALL?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides the MEN and WOMEN actually mentioned.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה הכל לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי יורש ודלא כר' יהודה
5 - It includes the case of an heir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who exchanges a sacrifice which his father consecrated during his lifetime.');"><sup>10</sup></span> and [the Mishnah] will not be in accordance with the view of R'Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that an heir cannot effect an exchange with his father's dedication.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו דתנן יורש סומך יורש ממיר דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר יורש אינו סומך ויורש אינו ממיר
6 for it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 93a; 'Ar. 2a.');"><sup>12</sup></span> An heir can lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the father was unable to do so during his life-time.');"><sup>13</sup></span> an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. This is the teaching of R'Meir; whereas R'Judah says: An heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice] nor can an heir effect exchange [with his father's dedication].
ז מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה יליף תחילת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחילת הקדש יורש אינו ממיר
7 What is R'Judah's reason? - We infer the case of a preliminary act in the dedication<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that of exchanging.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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>
ח וסמיכה גופה מנלן תלת (ויקרא ג, א) קרבנו כתיבי חד קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים וחד קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו וחד קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו
8 Just as in the case of the final act, an heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice], so in the case of the preliminary act, an heir cannot effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. And how do we know this in the case of laying on of hands itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an heir cannot perform this.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - 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> is used: One [intimates that] 'his offering' [requires laying on of hands], but not that of a gentile. One [that] 'his offering', but not that of his fellow.
ט ולר' מאיר דאמר יורש סומך והכתיב קרבנו ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות כל בעלי חוברין לסמיכה
9 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> 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> - 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>
י ורבי יהודה בעלי חוברין לסמיכה לית ליה מאי טעמא דהא לא מיחד קרבן דידהו ואיבעית אימא לעולם אית ליה וקרבן עובד כוכבים וקרבן חבירו מחד קרא נפקא דאייתר ליה חד לבעלי חוברין לסמיכה
10 as requiring to perform laying on of hands. And [what does] R'Judah] [say to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the text is interpreted for this purpose, how can he infer his ruling that an heir cannot lay hands?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - 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>
יא ור"מ דאמר יורש ממיר מאי טעמא אמר לך (ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבו' היורש
11 What is the reason? 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> 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.