Temurah 52

כיוצא בה שמע מינה תלת

has the same status.

ש"מ קדושת דמים נדחה וש"מ בעלי (מומין) נדחין ושמע מינה דיחוי מעיקרו הוי דיחוי

You can deduce from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's ruling.');">¹</span>

אמר אביי

three things: You can deduce from this that animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading in Bah.');">²</span>

הכל מודים היכא דאמר חציה עולה וחציה מעשר דברי הכל עולה קריבה

[dedicated for sacrifices] can be removed for ever from sacred use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And although subsequently they became fit to be offered, they are forever forbidden to be offered, on account of the previous suspension from sacred use.');">³</span>

היכא דאמר חציה תמורה וחציה מעשר מאי

You can also deduce from this that the holiness of animals dedicated for their value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for example, here whore he dedicates a half of the animal; such dedication could only have been for its value.');">⁴</span>

תמורה קריבה שכן נוהגת בכל הקדשים או דלמא מעשר קרובה שכן מקדיש לפניו ולאחריו

can be removed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one might have thought that the suspension of holiness only applies to animals dedicated for the altar. We therefore see from R. Johanan's teaching that it is not so.');">⁵</span>

תיקו

You can also deduce from this that a removal from sacred use at the beginning [of a dedication]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for example, here where from the very commencement of the consecration there was a suspension from holiness. For there is a difference of opinion (in Suk. 33a) , one authority maintaining that where a dedicated animal was originally fit to be offered and the holiness was then suspended and finally the animal became fit again for sacred use, the animal is removed forever from sacred use, but where the suspension of holiness occurred at the very beginning of its consecration, if it became fit again, it may be used for sacred purposes.');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרי זו תחת זו תמורת זו חליפת זו הרי זו תמורה

is valid for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is a suspension'.');">⁷</span>

זו מחוללת על זו אין זו תמורה ואם היה הקדש בעל מום יוצא לחולין וצריך לעשות דמים

Said Abaye: All the authorities concerned agree [even R'Jose] that if he says: A half of an animal shall be burnt-offering and the other half an animal tithed, all are agreed that it is offered as a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he meant these dedications from the beginning, as his latter statement is of no account, since an animal tithed does not become holy except by passing through the shed and being numbered as the tenth. The same law applies if one says: Half the animal shall be a burnt-offering, the other half shall be an exchange, the latter statement having no effect, since there is no animal present for which an exchange might be effected');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למימרא דתחת לישנא דאתפוסי הוא ורמינהו

What is the ruling, however, if he says: A half of an animal shall be an exchange and half of an animal tithed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His statements in both instances have a certain irregularity since as regards tithe one cannot say: Let this be tithe except when the animal is passing through the shed to be numbered, and in the case of exchange one cannot say: Let this be an exchange unless there is an animal with which a substitute might be effected.');">⁹</span>

קדשי בדק הבית אמר חליפת זו תמורת זו לא אמר כלום תחת זו מחוללת על זו דבריו קיימין

Is the animal offered as an exchange, since it [the exchange] applies to all dedications, or is it perhaps offered as an animal tithed, since [the animal] before the tenth and the succeeding [one] are consecrated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for example, he called the ninth the tenth, and the eleventh the tenth, the three animals are holy, i.e., the ninth, tenth and the eleventh.');">¹⁰</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך לישנא דאיתפוסי היא מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא

- Let it remain undecided.

אמר אביי

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD THIS [ANIMAL] IS TAHATH [INSTEAD OF] THIS, BEHOLD THIS IS HALIFATH [IN PLACE OF] THIS, BEHOLD THIS IS TEMURATH [THE EXCHANGE OF] THIS, [EACH OF THESE] IS THE CASE OF A VALID EXCHANGE.

תחת משכחת לה לישנא דאיתפוסי ולישנא דאחולי

[IF HOWEVER ONE SAYS:] THIS SHALL BE REDEEMED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'made hullin'.');">¹¹</span>

לישנא דאתפוסי דכתיב

FOR THIS, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF A [VALID] EXCHANGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his words are of no consequence, since an unblemished dedicated animal cannot become hullin.');">¹²</span> AND IF THE DEDICATED ANIMAL WAS BLEMISHED, IT BECOMES HULLIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the other animal takes its place.');">¹³</span> AND HE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE UP [THE HULLIN] TO THE VALUE [OF THE DEDICATED ANIMAL].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the hullin is less in value than the dedication, since otherwise the consecration would be penalised. According to one explanation given later in the Gemara, this is only a Rabbinical requirement.');">¹⁴</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does this mean to say that the [word] tahath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in connection with exchanging. Lit., 'under'.');">¹⁵</span> has the meaning of occupying the place of?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it becomes consecrated according to the law of exchange.');">¹⁶</span> This is contradicted [by the following]: As regards dedications for Temple repairs, if one says: Halifath this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one set before him an animal of hullin and said: This shall be halifath (in place of) this dedication for Temple repairs.');">¹⁷</span> temurath this, he has said nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he used the language of temurah, which does not apply to dedications for Temple repairs.');">¹⁸</span> [If, however, one says:] Tahath this, [this is] redeemed for this, his words stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dedicated animal thus becoming hullin, and this one entering into its place, since even unblemished dedications for Temple repairs can be redeemed.');">¹⁹</span> Now if we suppose that the [word] 'tahath' has the meaning of occupying the place of, what is the difference between the first and second clause [of the Baraitha]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does the first clause in the Baraitha say that his words are of no consequence while the other clause says that his words stand, for since tahath is used in the sense of exchanging and there is no exchange in connection with repairs for Temple purposes, the Baraitha should have stated in the second clause also that his words are of no consequence.');">²⁰</span> - Said Abaye: The [word] 'tahath' is used in the sense of occupying the place of and in the sense of redeeming. In the sense of occupying the place of, as Scripture says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 23.');">²¹</span>