Temurah 51
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר יצחק ברבי יוסי א"ר יוחנן
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Isaac the son of Joseph reported in the name of R'Johanan: All the authorities concerned agree that if one says, 'Let this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the exchange of a burnt-offering.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
דר' מאיר סבר
The dispute, however, is only e.g. , in the case stated by the Mishnah: The exchange of a burnt-offering, the exchange of a peace-offering, R'Meir holding that since he ought to have said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he meant that the animal should receive the exchange of a pace-offering and a burnt-offering.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
מדהוה ליה למימר תמורת עולה ושלמים ואמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים הויא ליה כאומר תחול זו ואח"כ תחול זו
The exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, and he said, The exchange of a burnt-offering, the exchange of a peace-offering, it is like the case of one who says, 'Let this take effect' and afterwards, 'Let t take effect'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All agreeing that under such circumstances we hold to the first statement.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אי אמר תמורת עולה ושלמים הוה אמינא
thinks that] if he said: The exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, the result would be that it is holy but is not offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But is condemned to pasture. In this he made a mistake and used the word exchange in connection with peace-offering as well as burnt-offering, in order that the animal should be offered.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
קדושה ואינה קריבה קמ"ל
R'Jose therefore informs us [that his words stand].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he really intended that both should be an exchange, this being on a par with a case where one says: This should not take effect without the other taking effect.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ת"ר האומר בהמה זו חציה תמורת עולה וחציה תמורת שלמים כולה תקרב עולה דברי ר"מ
Our Rabbis have taught: If one says, This animal shall be half the exchange of a burnt-offering and the other half the exchange of a peace-offering, the whole animal is offered as a burnt-offering.
וחכ"א
This is the teaching of R'Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we hold to the first statement, and since a half is holy, the whole animal becomes holy. And although R. Meir holds (supra 18a) that if one dedicated a foot of an animal the whole animal does not receive holiness, the case here is different where a half of the animal is dedicated, since it is a section of the animal without which it cannot live.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
רבי יוסי היינו רבנן
But is not the opinion of R'Jose identical with that of the Rabbis? - The whole [of the first part of this Baraitha] is taught by R'Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha informs us that R. Jose is described as the 'Sages'.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
בהמה חציה עולה וחציה חטאת (כולה) תיקרב עולה דברי ר"מ
R'Jose says: Let it die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We hold also to the last statement when the two statements of a person contradict. And since he is not obliged to bring a sin-offering, the animal is condemned to die, like a sin-offering whose owners procured atonement through another animal (R. Gershom) . Tosaf. comments that in circumstances where one is not required to bring a sin-offering, if he says: Let this animal be a sin-offering, his words are of no avail and that we are dealing here with a case where one says: Let half of this animal be exchanged for a burnt-offering and the other half be exchanged for a sin-offering, R. Jose holding that the animal dies, since the holiness of both sacrifices rests on the animal, and as one dedication is that of the exchange of a sin-offering, the animal is condemned to die.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
שוין מני
That of R'Meir!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even R. Meir, who holds in the first part of this Baraitha that the animal is offered, on this occasion must inevitably hold that it is condemned to die.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ר"מ פשיטא
But surely this is obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he says that we hold to the first statement and since the man said here first that the half should be a sin-offering, it must certainly be left to die, as he is not obliged to bring a sin-offering.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אי לאו דאשמעינן הוה אמינא
I might have thought that the reason of R'Meir is not because of the rule: 'Hold to the first statement', but the reason [really] is because a sin-offering which has been mixed up with another dedication is offered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there are two separate dedications mixed up in the animal, and although both have effect on it, since there is mixed up in the animal a dedication which makes it fit to be offered, we ignore the other dedication which makes it unfit to be offered (Rashi) .');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ואפילו כי אמר חציה חטאת והדר אמר חציה עולה קריבה קמ"ל דלא
Another [Baraitha] taught: If one says, Half of this animal shall be a burnt-offering and the [other] half s be a peace-offering, it is holy but is not offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is sold and for half of its money a burnt-offering is bought, and for the other half a peace-offering (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תמורתה איצטריך ליה דמהו דתימא
Surely it is obvious that the animal is holy but is not offered! - [The Baraitha] requires to mention the case of its exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not offered but sold after becoming blemished, a burnt-offering being bought with half the money and a peace-offering with the other half.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
נהי דהיא לא קרבה תמורתה תקרב קא משמע לן
for you might have said: Granted that the animal itself is not offered, still its exchange is offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in accordance with the exchange he did not mention either the word peace-offering or burnt-offering, but simply said: Let this animal be for that (R. Gershom) . Tosaf. explains that the intention was not that the exchange should be half a burnt-offering and half a peace-offering, but that the animal should be a complete exchange, either for half of a burnt-offering or for the half of a pace-offering, for although one may not exchange a whole animal for a limb of a dedicated animal, the case is different where the exchange is effected for a half of a dedicated animal.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
בהמה של שני שותפים הקדיש חציה שלו וחזר ולקח חציה אחרת והקדישה קדושה ואינה קריבה ועושה תמורה ותמורתה
Its exchange also is such in virtue of a suspended holiness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the exchange cannot be in a better position than the original animal from which it draws his holiness.');"><sup>23</sup></span> R'Johanan said: If an animal belonged to two partners and one dedicated his half and then proceeded to purchase the other half and dedicated it, [the animal] is holy but is not offered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since when at first he dedicated his half, the animal was not fit to be offered at the altar, for half of an animal by itself cannot be offered, and the holiness of the other half, since it was not his, could not spread to the rest of the animal.');"><sup>24</sup></span> it effects exchange and its exchange