Temurah 4

Chapter 4

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

1 We infer then the case of a final act in the dedication1

ב ר' יהודה האי ואם המר ימיר מאי עביד ליה לרבות את האשה וכדתניא לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא לשון זכר שנאמר לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו אשה מנין ת"ל ואם המר ימיר לרבות את האשה

2 from the case of a preliminary act in the dedication.2 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. And what will R'Judah do with the text: 'And if he shall at al change'?3 - 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,4 whence do you derive that the same applies to a woman? The text therefore states:5 'And if he shall at all change',6

ג ולר"מ אשה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מואם ורבי יהודה ואם לא דריש

3 in order to include a woman. And whence does R'Meir7 derive that a woman [can effect an exchange]? - He derives it from the waw ['and'].8

ד ובין ר"מ ובין ר' יהודה טעמא דרבי קרא לאשה הא לא רבייה קרא ה"א כי עבדא תמורה לא לקיא והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשין שבתורה

4 And [what does] R'Judah [say to this]? - He does not interpret the waw.9 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,10 but if it had not included it, I might have thought that when she exchanged she was not punishable [with lashes].11 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;12

ה איצטריך מהו דתימא ה"מ עונש דשוה בין ביחיד בין בצבור אבל הכא כיון דעונש שאינה שוה בכל הוא דתנן אין הצבור והשותפין עושין תמורה אשה נמי כי עבדא לא לקיא קמ"ל

5 Scripture thus places woman on a par with man in respect of all the penalties mentioned in the Torah! - You13 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 this is the case only as regards a penalty which applies equally, both to the individual and the community, but there,15

ו בעי רמי בר חמא קטן מהו שימיר היכי דמי אילימא בקטן שלא הגיע לעונת נדרים לא תיבעי לך דכיון אקדושי לא אקדיש אמורי ממיר אלא כי קמבעיא ליה בקטן שהגיע לעונת נדרים

6 since the penalty does not apply equally in all cases, for we have learnt: A community or partners cannot effect an exchange,16 therefore in the case of a woman also if she performed an exchange she would not be punishable [with lashes]. Hence we are informed [that this is not so]. Rami B'Hama asked: Can a minor effect an exchange? What kind of case do you mean?

ז מי אמרינן כיון דאמר מר איש מה ת"ל (ויקרא כז, ב) כי יפליא נדר לרבות מופלא הסמוך לאיש דקדשו קדוש מדאקדושי מקדיש אמורי נמי ממיר או דלמא כיון דלאו בר עונשין הוא בתמורה לא מיתפיס

7 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 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.18 Do we say, seeing that a Master said: [Scripture could have stated:] When a man shall utter a vow of persons. Why then does it say: If a man shall clearly utter19

ח אם תימצי לומר קטן עביד תמורה דהא אתי לכלל עונשין עובד כוכבים מהו שימיר מי אמרת מדאקדושי מקדיש דתניא איש איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל אמורי נמי ממיר או דלמא כיון דלא אתי לכלל עונשין כי עביד תמורה לא קדשה

8 a vow? It is in order to include 'a doubtful person20 next to a man' in that his dedication is valid.21 Now do we say that since he can dedicate, he can effect an exchange? Or, perhaps, since a minor is not punishable,22

ט אמר רבא 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 דברי ר"ש

9 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 And if you were to maintain that a minor can effect an exchange, since ultimately he comes into the category of being punishable,24 can a gentile effect an exchange?

י א"ר יוסי בכולן אני רואה להחמיר בד"א בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית מועלין בהן קתני מיהא אין עושין תמורה

10 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].25 What need is there for Scripture to repeat 'man'? It is in order to intimate that the gentiles can make votive freewill-offerings like the Israelites;26

יא ורמי בר חמא בהקדיש עובד כוכבים להתכפר עובד כוכבים לא קמיבעיא לי כי קמיבעיא לי בהקדיש עובד כוכבים ומתכפר בישראל בתר מקדיש אזלינן או בתר מתכפר אזלינן

11 [do we say that] they therefore can also effect an exchange? Or perhaps since [they] never come into the category of being punishable,27

יב תיפשוט ליה מדר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו

12 [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.28 Nor are [these] subject to the law of piggul,29 nothar,30 and uncleanness. [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange, nor can they bring drink-offerings,31 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]32 I favour the strict view.33 This34 applies only to things dedicated for the altar,35 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.36 And what does Rami B'Hama [say to this]?37 - 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 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 consecrates39 or by the person for whom atonement is made?40 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 and he who is to procure atonement can effect an exchange,42 and if one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain]

Previous Chapter Next Chapter