Temurah 13a — the Talmud in English

The Sages hold that a beit ha-peres is made over ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

three fields.

That is, the same field in which there was a grave, and one field on this side and one field on that side, on its two sides, but not on its four surrounding sides. For example, if it is the practice of the people of the valley to plow their fields from east to west, the beit ha-peres is made of the field to the east and the one to the west, as follows:

And if their practice is to plow from north to south, the beit ha-peres is made from north to south, as follows:

Because we are concerned that perhaps the plow dragged the earth of the beit ha-peres and the bones of the dead in that direction. But not on all four sides, because it is not the practice to plow both lengthwise and widthwise—

and those two fields are made a beit ha-peres up to the place where he plowed,

and

not more than the measure of

“two furrows,”

one furrow on this side and one furrow on that side.

That is, the same field in which the grave was plowed—all of it is a beit ha-peres, for we do not know in which place the grave was. And since we must be concerned that perhaps the grave was at the edge of the field, and from there the bones of the dead were dragged into the field beside it, therefore the beit ha-peres is made from there onward for the measure of “a full furrow.” And all this applies only on the sides in the direction in which the plow travels, east and west, or north and south, as explained.

And the Gemara clarifies:

And how much

is the measure of

“a full furrow”?—

One hundred cubits,

for the Sages estimated that up to this measure the bones are capable of being dragged by the plow.

As we learned [

there, Mishna 1]:

One who plows a grave—

behold, this one makes a beit ha-peres.

Up to

what extent does he make it? A full furrow,

and that is

one hundred cubits.

We learned in our Mishna:

And there is no teruma after teruma.

And the Gemara discusses:

Whose is the Mishna?

Whose Mishna is ours?

It is Rabbi Akiva’s!

As we learned

The partners

in produce

who made teruma one after the other—

Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma of both of them—

is teruma,

for both of them have a share in the produce, and each one made teruma for himself.

Rabbi Akiva says: The teruma of neither of them is teruma,

even not the teruma of the first, since the second returned and made teruma after him—he revealed his opinion that he does not agree with the teruma of the first. It turns out that the first made teruma “without the knowledge of his fellow,” that is, without his consent, and “one who makes teruma without the knowledge [of the owner]”—his teruma is not teruma. And likewise the teruma of the second is not teruma, because the first, by making teruma, revealed his opinion that he is not pleased with the teruma of the second.

And the Sages say: If the first made teruma according to the measure

of teruma, and that is one-fiftieth—

the teruma of the second is not teruma,

for the first has already exempted it ,

And if he did not make teruma

the first

according to the measure,

for example, he made teruma with an ungenerous eye, and that is one-sixtieth—

the teruma of the second is teruma.

It follows that our Mishna, which says that the teruma of the second is not teruma , is the Mishna of Rabbi Akiva .

We learned in our Mishna:

And a substitute does not make a substitute.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

The verse says [

Leviticus 27]: “And it shall be, he and his substitute,”

and we expound:

“His substitute”—

but not the substitute of his substitute.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the offspring does not make a substitute.

And the reason is:

The verse says [

there]: “And it shall be

he

and his substitute,” and we expound:

he

alone, a consecrated animal,

makes

a substitute, but not an offspring .

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: The offspring does make a substitute.

Because

the verse says [

there]: “And it shall be he and his substitute

shall be

holy,” and we expound that the word

“shall be,”

which is superfluous—

includes the offspring.

And the Gemara clarifies:

And the Rabbis,

what did they expound from the superfluous word “shall be”?

And we answer:

To include an inadvertent act like an intentional act,

if he made a substitution inadvertently—for example, he intended to say, “The black ox that leaves my house shall be a substitute,” and he said, “the white ox”—its substitution is a substitution.

And even though in such a case, if he “consecrated” an offering, it would not be holy, because it is a mistaken consecration, nevertheless, with regard to substitution, the substitution takes effect. And this is learned from what is said: “It shall be.”

Mishna:

Birds and meal-offerings do not make a substitute.

For “animal” alone was stated. [

Leviticus 27]: “And if he shall indeed substitute an animal for an animal.”

The communal offerings and the partners do not make a substitute,

because

it is stated [

there]

“He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it”

in the singular. And we expound:

An individual makes a substitute, but the community and partners do not make a substitute.

The consecrated objects of

the Temple treasury do not make a substitute,

because it is stated [there], “offering,” and the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury are not called an offering, as will be explained in the Gemara. These are the words of the first tanna .

Rabbi Shimon agrees that the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury do not make a substitution; rather, he holds that it is impossible to exclude them through “offering,” because according to his opinion the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury are called an offering. And he excludes them through another exposition. And it is this:

After the Torah wrote [verses 9–10] the laws of substitution, the Torah again wrote [verses 32–33] the law of substitution concerning animal tithe. And this is what is written there: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, all that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad, and he shall not substitute it; and if he shall indeed substitute it, then it and its substitute shall be holy; it may not be redeemed.” Therefore:

Rabbi Shimon said: But

animal tithe

of the flock

was included

among all the consecrated objects that make a substitution;

and why did it go out,

why did the Torah return and specify in its regard the law of substitution?

To be compared to it,

so that we may learn the other consecrated objects from it,

to tell you:

Just as animal tithe—

is an individual offering

and the animal of partners is exempt from tithe, as explained in tractate Bekhorot [56b]— and it makes a substitution, so too every individual offering makes a substitution;

they went out [

were excluded]

the communal offerings

and those of partners.

And just as animal tithe is consecrated for the altar,

and makes a substitution, so too all consecrated objects for the altar.

The consecrated objects of the Temple treasury are excluded.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The consecrated objects of the Temple treasury do not make a substitution.

The Gemara brings a beraita, in which we expound to exclude the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury from substitution.

The Sages taught: Could the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury make a substitution? The verse says [

there]: “And if it is an animal from which they will bring

an offering

to the Lord ... he shall not exchange it, nor substitute it.” And we expound:

Those that are called “an offering”

make a substitution;

the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury are excluded, for they are not called an offering.

And we raise an objection:

And

is it the case that they

are not

called an offering?!

But it was taught,

the Gemara brings another beraita, and from it it is implied that they are called an offering.

That beraita was taught regarding slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard]. The Torah said [Leviticus 17]: “Any man of the House of Israel who slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp [outside the courtyard. Rashi] or who slaughters it outside the camp, and he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to bring it as an offering to the Lord before the Sanctuary of the Lord ... that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

And there the beraita expounded from what is stated, “an offering,” that one is liable to karet only for slaughtering consecrated animals outside the courtyard, but not for slaughtering unconsecrated animals in the courtyard.

And the beraita raises a difficulty there:

If “an offering,”

that is, from where do we know that the Torah wrote “an offering” for this exposition, and why was it not expounded:

I might understand even the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury

that if he slaughtered them outside he is liable to karet, for the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury

are called an offering?

And from where do we know that they are called “an offering”?

As in the matter that is stated,

regarding the spoils of the war with Midian [Numbers 31]:

“And we shall bring the offering of the Lord

of the man who found a gold article, an anklet, a bracelet, a ring, and a clasp,” and these objects are certainly nothing other than consecrated objects of the Temple treasury?

The verse says: “And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

and we expound:

Everyone who comes to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

and these are consecrated objects for the altar—

one is liable for it on account of slaughtering outside; and anything that does not come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

such as the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury, which are ordinarily blemished animals—

one is not liable for it on account of slaughtering outside.

This is the end of the beraita. And the Gemara concludes:

Evidently,

it is proven from the words of the beraita that the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury

were called [—

were called]

“an offering,”

and how, then, were they excluded by “an offering” stated regarding substitution?

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina said: It is not difficult! This

beraita, regarding slaughtering outside, which holds that the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury are called an offering—

is Rabbi Shimon,

who excludes in our Mishna the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury by the analogy to animal tithe and not by “an offering,” because according to his opinion they were indeed called “an offering.”

This,

whereas the beraita that excludes them from substitution from what is stated, “an offering”—

is the Rabbis,

who hold in our Mishna that they were excluded because they were not called “an offering.”

According to Rabbi Shimon, it was called an offering; according to the Rabbis, it was not called an offering.

And we raise an objection:

And

is it the case that they

are not

called an offering?!

But it is written

there, regarding the spoils of the war with Midian,

“And we shall bring the offering of the Lord”?

And we answer:

It was called “the offering of the Lord,”

but

“an offering to the Lord,”

whose meaning is an offering brought for the sake of the Lord in the courtyard,

it was not called so.

The Gemara brings a beraita, in which Rabbi Shimon expounds his exposition from the fact that the Torah repeated the law of substitution regarding animal tithe after it had already been stated regarding the other consecrated objects, as explained in our Mishna, and Rabbi’s exposition.

The Sages taught:

The Torah said regarding animal tithe:

“He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad, and he shall not substitute it.”

And it is difficult:

Why was this stated? But it was already stated, “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad,” and so forth.

And animal tithe is included among all the consecrated objects?

Rather,

because it is stated, “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it,”

if the Torah had written only this verse, it would have implied that every substitution of consecrated objects is prohibited:

an individual offering, a communal offering, an offering of the altar, an offering of the Temple treasury, and a matter that comes as an obligation,

as will be explained below. And since this would have been implied, therefore

the verse says, “He shall not inspect,”

to exclude a communal offering, the consecrated objects of the Temple treasury, and a matter that does not come as an obligation.

And how is it expounded from "he shall not inspect"?

Rabbi Shimon said: Was not the tithe included

in all sacred offerings

and why did it emerge? To tell you: Just as tithe is an individual offering

it is,

and an altar-offering

it is,

and a matter that comes as an obligation

it is,

and a matter that does not come in partnership

it is [as explained in the Mishna], and it effects substitution.

So too, every individual offering, altar-offering, and matter that comes as an obligation ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

and a matter that does not come in partnership,

effects substitution. And there were excluded a public offering and partners' offerings, and consecrated things for Temple maintenance, and a matter that does not come as an obligation.