Temurah 10a — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps

it may be said:

everything

that is

of the same sanctity,

and is subordinate to the first,

does not add a fifth.

And this question is in the case of “two bodies and one sanctity.”

And his second question is in the case of “two sanctities and one body”:

And if you should say,

if we resolve the preceding question and say

the law is that of another body,

this other body,

since it stands in the same sanctity—

does not add a fifth.

There still remains another question to ask, namely: If one designated a guilt-offering in order to achieve atonement through it, and it was lost, and he

achieved atonement through another guilt-offering,

and the first was found,

and this first one was transferred to become a burnt-offering, what is the law?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

For there is reason to say:

When we say that he does not add a fifth, this applies

only to

that same body

with the same sanctity,

and since it has that same sanctity and is subordinate to the one preceding it, he does not add a fifth.

But that same body with a different sanctity,

and it was transferred from a guilt-offering to a burnt-offering, there is reason to say that with regard to this burnt-offering

not

do we say that he does not add a fifth; rather, he adds a fifth.

Or perhaps,

it may be said: Since

it is the same body,

and it is subordinate to the first,

he does not add a fifth.

And Rabbi Avin presented these two questions by way of “if you should say,” but he did not ask at all about “two bodies and two sanctities.”

And we conclude:

teyku,

the questions were not resolved!

And in connection with one matter leading to another, the Gemara brings another discussion concerning a fifth.

The Torah said [there], concerning one who consecrates an impure animal for the repair of the Temple: “And if it is any impure animal, of which they do not bring an offering to the Lord, then he shall set up the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether good or bad; according to the valuation of the priest, so shall it be. And if he shall surely redeem it, then he shall add its fifth to your valuation.”

And apparently the verses contradict one another. For at the beginning it says, “According to the valuation of the priest, so shall it be,” whereas at the end it says, “And he shall add its fifth to your valuation”?

And the Sages expounded [Torat Kohanim] that what is stated, “According to the valuation of the priest, so shall it be,” refers to any other person who comes to purchase it from the Temple treasury. And what is stated, “And if he shall surely redeem it,” refers to the owners; with regard to the owners, Scripture was stringent that they add a fifth.

The Gemara discusses one who designated an offering so that his fellow might achieve atonement through it , and it developed a blemish, and he came to redeem it—who is the owner with regard to adding a fifth: the one who consecrated it or the one achieving atonement?

Rami bar Hama asked:

Does

the one who consecrated it add a fifth, or the one achieving atonement

add a fifth?

And we conclude:

Rava said: The verse says

[there]

“And if the one who consecrated his house shall redeem it

and he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it,” and we infer:

“the one who consecrated it”

adds a fifth,

but not the one achieving atonement.

The Gemara discusses a similar question concerning temura. It has already been explained above [7b, 9a] that a person cannot attach to temura something that is not his, and only the owner performs temura. And the Gemara discusses one who designated an offering so that his fellow might achieve atonement through it—who is the “owner” who performs temura, the one who consecrated it or the one achieving atonement?

Rami bar Hama asked:

Does

the one who consecrated it perform temura, or does the one achieving atonement perform temura?

And the Gemara discusses it:

Rava said: It is obvious ,

it is a simple matter

that the one achieving atonement performs temura.

For two reasons.

a.

For if the one who consecrated it performed temura, then we would find

that

the community and partners

perform temura.

That is, temura in a communal offering or a partners’ offering,

and what are the circumstances,

and how could it occur?

For example, when they appointed

the community or the partners appointed an individual

as an agent to consecrate

an offering on their behalf , and they would achieve atonement through it.

That is, the community and partners do not perform temura. And the reason is that temura is derived [below, 13a] from animal tithe: just as animal tithe applies only to an individual, so too temura.

Now, granted, if we say that the one achieving atonement is the owner, it is understandable why, when an individual consecrated an offering for the needs of the community, there is no temura for this offering, since the community cannot attach anything to it; and it is properly stated that “we do not find temura for a communal or partners’ offering.” -

But if we say that the one who consecrated it is the owner, then when an individual consecrated it as an agent of the community, he can exchange it for the offering that he consecrated. If so, we have found “temura in a communal offering.” And why is it stated below as obvious that a “communal offering” does not perform temura?

b.

And furthermore, for Rav Nahman said: Huna said to me,

his colleague Rav Huna:

A tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita: The Torah said at the end of the portion of the nazirite [Numbers 6], “This is the law of the nazirite who shall vow

his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, besides what his hand can afford.”

And the beraita asks:

Is a nazirite judged according to what his hand can afford?! [“What his hand can afford” means: anyone obligated to bring an offering concerning whom the Torah wrote, “And if his hand cannot afford” to bring an animal offering, he shall bring two birds or a meal-offering in its place. And this is called an “ascending and descending offering,” that is, one brought by a rich person and a poor person.] But is not the nazirite’s offering fixed for both poor and rich, and was no other law stated in the entire portion of the nazirite for a poor person whose hand cannot afford it?

And the beraita answers:

How is this understood?

How is this so,

how is the verse to be interpreted? What is stated,

“his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship,”

speaks of a case

in which he designated

the offering

from his own property;

that he shall bring for his naziriteship. And what is stated,

“besides what his hand can afford”

comes to teach us about a nazirite who now does not have sufficient means, and his offering that he brings is what

others designated for him, and later his hand becomes able to afford it; and when he brings an offering that others designated for him, he fulfills his obligation. This will be explained further.

but who will acquire the means in the future; when he brings an offering that others designated for him, he fulfills his obligation. This will be explained further.

Rava explains the beraita:

For what halakhic purpose,

for what halakha did the Torah say that he may bring an offering that others designated for his needs?

If you say,

if you say:

with regard to atonement,

that he achieves atonement through the offering—

it is obvious that it atones for him,

for behold,

he is giving him a gift,

the offering is now his, and he received it as a gift; what innovation is there in this?

Rather,

is it not

with regard to temura, and this is what it says: The statement “his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship” refers to one who designated it from his own property, while the Torah concludes, “besides what his hand can afford”—this refers to one whom others designated it for, and it comes to teach us that if

the statement “his offering to the Lord for his nazirite status” refers to one who designated an offering from his own property, while the Torah concludes, “in addition to whatever he can afford,” referring to an offering that others designated for him. This teaches that if

others designated it for him,

he is

like one who designated it from his own property.

To teach us:

Just as when he designated it from his own property,

he

performs temura

and no other—

so too when others designated it for him,

the one achieving atonement

performs temura

and no other.

Infer from it

from these two proofs:

we follow the one achieving atonement,

we follow the one achieving atonement. That is, he performs temura, and not the one who consecrated it .

The Gemara rejects this latter proof:

No!

There is no proof from here, for

in fact

the beraita

is speaking with regard to atonement,

and not with regard to temura.

And if it is difficult for you,

and concerning what you asked, that with regard to atonement there is no innovation in this, because

it is a gift that they are giving him,

and now it is his—

Let us answer: Since

if the Merciful One had not included,

if the Torah had not explicitly included this through the explicit addition stated in

“besides what his hand can afford”—

we would have said,

we would have said:

It is a decree of Scripture: “his offering”—

it is from his own property that he achieves atonement ,

from an offering purchased with his money; only from him does he have atonement, whereas

from

what

others

gave him,

no,

and so the Torah decreed!

that is the scriptural decree!

It teaches us,

the Torah teaches us that this is not so, and that he can achieve atonement through an offering that others designated for him.

After Rava’s proof was rejected, the Gemara inquires

What has become of it,

and how shall we resolve Rami bar Hama’s question: who performs temura—the one who consecrated it or the one achieving atonement?

And we conclude:

Come and hear

from this

that Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

three halakhot concerning one who gives from his own property the obligation of his fellow.

a.

The one who consecrates gives a fifth,

and not the one achieving atonement.

b.

The one achieving atonement performs temura,

and not the one who consecrates.

c.

One who contributes

a contribution

from his own property,

from his produce,

for the property of others—

the benefit of discretion is his,

the benefit that he can derive from this, such as choosing the priest to whom he will give it, belongs to the contributor, and not to the others for whom it was contributed.

And the Gemara explains the last halakha:

What is the reason

that the benefit of discretion belongs to the contributor?

The verse says

[Deuteronomy 26]: “When you have finished tithing

all the tithe of your produce, and you shall give it to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.”

And we expound: The one who took the tithe from his produce is the one who gives it, and it is in his power to give it to whomever he wishes, and not in the power of the others for whom it was contributed.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with the law of temura. And it has already been explained that wherever the Mishna says “they perform temura” or “they do not perform temura,” its meaning is: after the fact, if it was exchanged. But initially it is certainly forbidden to exchange, and one who exchanges receives forty lashes.

They do not exchange limbs,

parts of an unconsecrated animal,

for fetuses

of consecrated property. Thus, if he said, “Let the leg of this animal be in place of the fetus of consecrated property in the womb of this animal,” sanctity does not take effect upon the leg.

Nor fetuses for limbs,

if he said, “Let the fetus in the womb of this unconsecrated animal be in place of the leg” of this consecrated animal, the fetus does not become consecrated [and the Gemara will explain how the limbs became consecrated].

Nor fetuses and limbs

of unconsecrated animals

for entire animals

of consecrated property.

Nor entire animals

of unconsecrated property

for them,

for the limbs and fetuses of consecrated property. These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Yosei says: They exchange limbs for entire animals,

if he said, “Let the leg of this unconsecrated animal be in place of this consecrated animal,” the sanctity of temura takes effect upon the leg, and the sanctity spreads throughout the entire animal, and it is all temura, and it is offered.

But not entire animals for them.

For one limb of a consecrated animal does not have the power to effect temura.

Rabbi Yosei said:

But with regard to consecrated animals,

when

one initiates sanctity, saying, “The leg of this one is a burnt-offering,”

the entire animal is a burnt-offering,

because the sanctity spreads throughout it. If so, we should derive from this with regard to temura that

even when he says, “The leg of this one

shall be

in place of

this animal,

the entire animal shall be temura in its place.

For just as at the beginning of sanctity the sanctity of the limb spreads throughout it, so too with temura, the sanctity of temura that took effect upon the limb will spread throughout it.

Gemara:

Introduction

The Gemara brings the dispute between Bar Peda and Rabbi Yohanan, whether “sanctity [that is, the beginning of sanctity] takes effect upon fetuses” or not. And this dispute is brought here because later the Gemara will raise an objection from our Mishna against Bar Peda.

And in order to explain the matter, one must distinguish between “offspring of consecrated animals” and a “fetus” of consecrated animals. "

offspring of consecrated animals,” that is, when he consecrated an empty female animal, and after the consecration it became pregnant and gave birth, Bar Peda and Rabbi Yohanan did not dispute concerning it, because such offspring is sacred with the sanctity of its mother, by virtue of the “power” of the mother’s sanctity, and this law is a scriptural decree. And it is not sacred by virtue of the sanctity of the speech of the person who consecrated it, for when he consecrated the mother, the offspring had still not been formed in its mother’s womb.

Therefore, if it is the offspring of a sin-offering, it goes to death according to the law of “offspring of a sin-offering,” by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

According to Rabbi Judah, the offspring effects temura after it is born, while according to the Sages it does not effect temura at all, even after it is born.

And they disputed when sanctity takes effect upon it. Some say, “at its coming into being,” at the time of its birth. And some say that even while it is in its mother’s womb.

Bar Peda and Rabbi Yohanan disputed concerning a “fetus,” and their dispute is in two ways:

a. When he consecrated only the fetus while it was in its mother’s womb, and did not consecrate the mother.

b. When he set aside a pregnant sin-offering, that is, he consecrated a pregnant animal as a sin-offering.

When he consecrated only the fetus, Bar Peda holds that the sanctity does not take effect at all, and if he offers it as an offering without consecrating it after it is born, when the time arrives at which it is possible to consecrate it, he is bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds that the sanctity takes effect immediately, while it is in its mother’s womb.

When he set aside a pregnant sin-offering, Bar Peda holds that the consecration takes effect not upon the fetus but upon the mother. And the fetus is sacred only by virtue of the mother, like the other offspring of consecrated animals, as explained. And since it is the offspring of a sin-offering, it will go to death, according to the law of the offspring of a sin-offering that goes to death.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds that an independent sanctity takes effect upon the fetus, since it is considered another animal. For the fetus and the mother are two animals, and “a fetus is not the thigh of its mother,” and “if he leaves it over, it remains set aside,” as will be explained later.

And according to him, if the fetus was consecrated as “security” for the mother, so that if it should happen that the mother is not offered, for whatever reason, the offspring would come in her place, an intrinsic sanctity takes effect upon the fetus by virtue of the consecration of the one who consecrated it, and not by virtue of the mother. Therefore, its law is not that of the offspring of a sin-offering, and it does not go to death, since it itself is a sin-offering, and not “the offspring of a sin-offering” [“the offspring of a sin-offering,” according to Rabbi Yohanan, is only when he consecrated an animal as a sin-offering, and afterward it became pregnant and gave birth].

Itamar,

one who consecrates a fetus as an offering,

Bar Peda said: Sanctity does not take effect upon fetuses. And Rabbi Yohanan said: Sanctity takes effect upon fetuses.

And the Gemara explains:

and Rabbi Yohanan followed his position,

what Rabbi Yohanan said—that sanctity does not take effect upon fetuses—is according to his position.

for Rabbi Yohanan said: He consecrated

[another reading:

set aside]

a pregnant sin-offering,

that is, he consecrated a pregnant animal as a sin-offering,

and it gave birth,

if

he wished—he is

atoned through it

itself,

and if he wished—

and if

he wishes—

he is atoned through its offspring,

since both of them were consecrated as security for one another, and through one he achieves atonement, while the other grazes.

Thus Rabbi Yohanan, according to his position, holds that sanctity takes effect upon fetuses.

And the Gemara explains:

And it was necessary,

Rabbi Yohanan needed to inform us that sanctity takes effect upon fetuses in both cases: both when he consecrated only the fetus and when he consecrated the fetus together with its mother. And one law cannot be learned from the other.