Temurah 4

ויליף סוף הקדש מתחילת הקדש מה תחילת הקדש יורש מימר אף סוף הקדש יורש סומך

We infer then the case of a final act in the dedication<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laying on of the hands which is prior to the sacrificing of the animal.');">¹</span>

ר' יהודה האי ואם המר ימיר מאי עביד ליה

from the case of a preliminary act in the dedication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exchanging of an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated one.');">²</span>

לרבות את האשה

Just as in the case of the preliminary act, an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication], so in th case of the final act, an heir can lay on hands.

וכדתניא

And what will R'Judah do with the text: 'And if he shall at al change'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the reduplicated expression, since he holds that an heir cannot effect exchange with his father's dedication?');">³</span>

לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא לשון זכר שנאמר

- It is to include [the exchange by] a woman, and as it is taught: Since the whole context [of exchanging] speaks only of the masculine gender, as it says: He shall not alter it nor change it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10.');">⁴</span>

לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו אשה מנין

whence do you derive that the same applies to a woman?

ת"ל

The text therefore states:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4.');">⁵</span>

ואם המר ימיר לרבות את האשה

'And if he shall at all change',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reduplicated expression when the one word 'he shall change' would have sufficed.');">⁶</span>

ולר"מ אשה מנא ליה

in order to include a woman.

נפקא ליה מואם

And whence does R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who needs the text 'and if he shall at all change' in order to include the case of an heir.');">⁷</span>

ורבי יהודה ואם לא דריש

derive that a woman [can effect an exchange]? - He derives it from the waw ['and'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Scripture could have said simply, 'If he shall at all change, etc.' without the 'and'. otu');">⁸</span>

ובין ר"מ ובין ר' יהודה טעמא דרבי קרא לאשה הא לא רבייה קרא ה"א

And [what does] R'Judah [say to this]? - He does not interpret the waw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waw in does not call for a special interpretation.');">⁹</span>

כי עבדא תמורה לא לקיא

Now according to the view both of R'Meir and of R'Judah, the reason [why the law of substitution applies to a woman] is because Scripture expressly included the case of a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating that the exchange is effective.');">¹⁰</span>

והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

but if it had not included it, I might have thought that when she exchanged she was not punishable [with lashes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that her exchange is not holy.');">¹¹</span>

(במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשין שבתורה

Surely Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab and likewise a Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael taught: [Scripture says:] When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6.');">¹²</span>

איצטריך מהו דתימא

Scripture thus places woman on a par with man in respect of all the penalties mentioned in the Torah! - You<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase 'it is necessary' is omitted with Sh. Mek.');">¹³</span>

ה"מ עונש דשוה בין ביחיד בין בצבור אבל הכא כיון דעונש שאינה שוה בכל הוא דתנן

might be under the impression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. (v. Rashi) : You might be under the impression that this is the case, viz., that a woman is placed on a par with man with reference only to a prohibition where an action is involved (e.g., the desecration of the Sabbath etc.) but in the case of a prohibition where no action is involved');">¹⁴</span>

אין הצבור והשותפין עושין תמורה אשה נמי כי עבדא לא לקיא קמ"ל

this is the case only as regards a penalty which applies equally, both to the individual and the community, but there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to exchanging.');">¹⁵</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא

since the penalty does not apply equally in all cases, for we have learnt: A community or partners cannot effect an exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 13a.');">¹⁶</span>

קטן מהו שימיר

therefore in the case of a woman also if she performed an exchange she would not be punishable [with lashes].

היכי דמי

Hence we are informed [that this is not so].

אילימא בקטן שלא הגיע לעונת נדרים לא תיבעי לך דכיון אקדושי לא אקדיש אמורי ממיר

Rami B'Hama asked: Can a minor effect an exchange?

אלא כי קמבעיא ליה בקטן שהגיע לעונת נדרים

What kind of case do you mean?

מי אמרינן כיון דאמר מר

Shall I say, it is the case of a minor who has not yet reached the stage of [legal] vows?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he is less than twelve years and a day. At that age, even if he knows to whom he vows and dedicates, his word is of no importance. From the age of thirteen years and a day, however, his vows and dedications are legal, even if he is not conscious of their significance.');">¹⁷</span>

איש מה ת"ל (ויקרא כז, ב) כי יפליא נדר לרבות מופלא הסמוך לאיש דקדשו קדוש

Surely there should be no question about this, for since he is unable [legally] to dedicate, how can he effect an exchange? - Rather the case is that of a minor who has reached the stage of [legal] vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the age of twelve years and a day, when his vows and consecrations are subject to examination as to whether he realises their import.');">¹⁸</span>

מדאקדושי מקדיש אמורי נמי ממיר

Do we say, seeing that a Master said: [Scripture could have stated:] When a man shall utter a vow of persons.

או דלמא כיון דלאו בר עונשין הוא בתמורה לא מיתפיס

Why then does it say: If a man shall clearly utter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Ki yafli (Lev. XXVII, 2) .');">¹⁹</span>

אם תימצי לומר

a vow?

קטן עביד תמורה דהא אתי לכלל עונשין עובד כוכבים מהו שימיר

It is in order to include 'a doubtful person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Mufla.');">²⁰</span>

מי אמרת מדאקדושי מקדיש דתניא

next to a man' in that his dedication is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a boy near the age of religious majority.');">²¹</span>

איש איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל אמורי נמי ממיר

Now do we say that since he can dedicate, he can effect an exchange?

או דלמא כיון דלא אתי לכלל עונשין כי עביד תמורה לא קדשה

Or, perhaps, since a minor is not punishable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Till the age of thirteen years and one day.');">²²</span>

אמר רבא

he cannot effect an exchange?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture says: He shall not alter it nor change it . . Then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy. We therefore say anyone to whom this prohibitory law and the penalty attached thereto apply, can perform an exchange, but as the prohibition and the penalty are not relevant to a minor, therefore his exchange is not valid.');">²³</span>

ת"ש דתניא קדשי עובדי כוכבים לא נהנין ולא מועלין ואין חייבין עליהם משום פיגול נותר וטמא אין עושין תמורה ואין מביאין (עליהם) נסכים אבל קרבנו טעון נסכים

And if you were to maintain that a minor can effect an exchange, since ultimately he comes into the category of being punishable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the penalties mentioned in the Torah when he attains his religious majority.');">²⁴</span>

דברי ר"ש

can a gentile effect an exchange?

א"ר יוסי

Should we say, since he can legally dedicate an animal for sacrifice, as it has been taught: [Scripture says:] A man, a man [of the house of Israel].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 8. E.V. 'whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel'.');">²⁵</span>

בכולן אני רואה להחמיר בד"א בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית מועלין בהן

What need is there for Scripture to repeat 'man'?

קתני מיהא אין עושין תמורה

It is in order to intimate that the gentiles can make votive freewill-offerings like the Israelites;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 62a; Men. 73b.');">²⁶</span>

ורמי בר חמא בהקדיש עובד כוכבים להתכפר עובד כוכבים לא קמיבעיא לי כי קמיבעיא לי בהקדיש עובד כוכבים ומתכפר בישראל

[do we say that] they therefore can also effect an exchange?

בתר מקדיש אזלינן או בתר מתכפר אזלינן

Or perhaps since [they] never come into the category of being punishable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Biblical commands and prohibitions do not apply to them.');">²⁷</span>

תיפשוט ליה מדר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן

[do we say that] when an exchange is performed by them [the animal] is not sacred? - Said Raba, Come and hear: For it has been taught, No secular use may be made of the dedications of gentiles, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 15ff.');">²⁸</span>

המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו

Nor are [these] subject to the law of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sacrifice rejected in consequence of improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest, to eat it beyond the prescribed time limit, v. Glos.');">²⁹</span> nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Portions of the sacrifice left over beyond the legal time, v. Glos.');">³⁰</span> and uncleanness. [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange, nor can they bring drink-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They cannot offer drink-offerings for the altar without bringing a sacrifice at the same time, unlike an Israelite.');">³¹</span> but the animal offering [of a gentile] requires [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings. These are the words of R'Simeon, R'Jose said: In all [these things]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to sacrilege, piggul, etc.');">³²</span> I favour the strict view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That sacrifices of gentiles are subject to the respective laws, the only exception being drink-offerings, which they cannot bring.');">³³</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The teaching of the first Tanna in the above Baraitha that says: Dedications of gentiles are not subject to the law of sacrilege.');">³⁴</span> applies only to things dedicated for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal sacrificed.');">³⁵</span> but with things dedicated [for their value] to be used for Temple needs, the law of sacrilege applies. At all events [the Baraitha] says: [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the above query of Rami b. Mama regarding a gentile.');">³⁶</span> And what does Rami B'Hama [say to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he inquire, since it is explicitly mentioned in the Baraitha.');">³⁷</span> - My inquiry does not refer to a case where a gentile dedicates [an animal] for his own atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'so that a gentile may be atoned for'. There is no doubt that in such a case the gentile cannot effect an exchange, since he does not come into the category of being punishable.');">³⁸</span> My inquiry has reference to a case where a gentile dedicated an animal so that an Israelite may be atoned for [by its sacrifice]. Do we go by the person who consecrates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the consecrator being a gentile cannot effect an exchange.');">³⁹</span> or by the person for whom atonement is made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is an Israelite and punishable and therefore an unconsecrated animal can be substituted for it, both animals thus becoming sacred.');">⁴⁰</span> But why not solve this question from what R'Abbuha said? For R'Abbuha reported in the name of R'Johanan: [Only] he who dedicates must add a fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a man dedicates his house or field, the owner, if he is desirous of redeeming it, must add a fifth. But if a stranger redeems it, Scripture does not make it incumbent upon the redeemer to add a fifth, v. Lev. XXVII, 15.');">⁴¹</span> and he who is to procure atonement can effect an exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the animal was consecrated for his benefit we regard it as his offering, because we go by the person for whom atonement is made.');">⁴²</span> and if one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain]