Temurah 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

The Torah states: “And it shall be, it and its substitute shall be holy,” and we expound “it shall be”:

It creates [

the Torah created, meaning, the Torah included ]

the unwitting act like the intentional act with regard to substitution, but it did not make the unwitting act like the intentional act with regard to consecrated property;

this will be explained in the Gemara.

Up to this point we have learned the differences between substitution and the initial consecration; now the Mishna explains in what way consecrated animals and substitution are alike:

Rabbi Elazar says: The mixed-breed animal,

an animal born from the interbreeding of a she-goat and a ewe,

the animal with a fatal condition,

an animal that became tereifa,

the animal born by caesarean section,

whose mother experienced difficulty giving birth, and whose mother’s abdomen was cut open and the offspring removed through the side,

the tumtum,

whose sex is not discernible,

and the androgynos,

who possesses both male and female characteristics—

Are not consecrated

with regard to substitution: If one substituted them, while they were non-sacred, for a consecrated animal, the sanctity of substitution does not take hold upon them, even though substitution takes effect upon a blemished animal.

Nor do they consecrate,

if they are consecrated, one cannot confer substitutional sanctity upon another non-sacred animal through them. [

The Gemara will explain how it is possible for them to be consecrated, seeing that sanctity does not take hold upon them, as will be explained ].

And all the more so, sanctity does not take hold upon them at the initial consecration. Although the other animals disqualified for sacrifice—such as an animal that mated with a person or was the object of bestiality, an animal set aside for idolatry or worshipped, an animal given as the price of a prostitute, and an animal exchanged for a dog—acquire intrinsic sanctity, and require a permanent blemish in order to redeem them, and after their redemption are forbidden to be shorn or worked, these five acquire only monetary sanctity, like mere wood and stones; they may be redeemed without a blemish, and after their redemption it is permitted to shear and work them .

And in this halakha, substitution is equivalent to consecration.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: It made the unwitting act like the intentional act with regard to substitution, but it did not make the unwitting act like the intentional act with regard to consecrated property.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda?

The verse states [

there ] “And it shall be, it and its substitute

shall be holy,”

and we expound: “It shall be”

includes the unwitting act like the intentional act.

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner was

the unwitting act like the intentional act included?

That is, what unwitting act did he perform concerning which Rabbi Yosei said that, with regard to substitution, it takes effect? In what was he mistaken, and what did he do?

a.

Hizkiah

said

His error was

that he thought it was permitted to effect substitution.

Therefore,

with regard to substitution he receives lashes,

for he is lashed for violating the prohibition “He shall not substitute,” even though he acted unwittingly. But

with regard to consecrated property,

if he consecrated a blemished animal and violated the prohibition explained above [5b], that it is forbidden to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar, and he thought that it was permitted to do so,

he does not receive lashes.

This is because we find lashes only for one who transgresses intentionally and after receiving a warning. But for substitution he is lashed, since the unwitting act was included like the intentional act through the word “shall be.”

Alternatively:

We hold in accordance with Beit Hillel [Nazir 31a] that “mistaken consecration is not consecration.” Yet here Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Yehuda says that unwitting substitution is substitution.

With regard to substitution, it is consecrated,

the sanctity takes hold, even though he acted unwittingly, whereas

with regard to consecrated property, it is not consecrated

at all, since his consecration was mistaken, and “mistaken consecration is not consecration.”

b.

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He thought to say

“substitution of an olah,”

but he erred

and said

“substitution of a shelamim.”

Alternatively: He thought to say

“The

black

ox that first emerges from my house shall be substitution for this consecrated animal,” but he erred and said, “The

white ox”—

With regard to substitution,

the substitution takes effect, and

he receives lashes,

whereas

with regard to consecrated property,

if this animal that he consecrated by mistake was a blemished animal—

he does not receive lashes,

and it is not consecrated at all , since his mouth and his heart were not in agreement; it is mistaken consecration, and it is not consecration.

c.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to one who says, “Let

this consecrated animal

this

go out to non-sacred status,

and let

this non-sacred animal

this

enter in its place into sanctity. And that consecrated animal is unblemished, and in truth it does not go out to non-sacred status, and both animals are consecrated, as the Torah states. But he erred, thinking that it would go out to non-sacred status like a blemished animal [that is, he knew that it was forbidden to effect substitution, but thought that an unblemished animal could be redeemed; there is no act of substitution here, and he did not know that it does not go out to non-sacred status. Had he known that both animals would be consecrated, he would not have effected substitution].

And similarly,

with regard to consecrated property,

he made a similar error. He knew that consecrated property is forbidden to non-priests, but

by saying,

that is, he thought that

consecrated property that developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption,

he ate it. [The comparison is that in both cases he knew the fundamentals of the halakha, but erred concerning its details]—

With regard to substitution, he receives lashes,

whereas

with regard to consecrated property, he does not receive lashes

for the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, since he acted unwittingly.

d.

Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to one who says, “I will enter this house and consecrate”,

and there he will consecrate an animal. Similarly, when he says, “I will enter this house

and effect substitution.”

All this was

with clear awareness,

with a lucid mind,

and he entered

the house, and effected substitution

and consecrated without awareness,

for he was a person subject to confused thoughts and did not know what he was saying!

With regard to substitution,

the substitution takes effect, and

he receives lashes,

even though he effected substitution without a settled mind. Whereas

with regard to consecrated property,

the sanctity does not take effect, and it is mistaken consecration; and if he consecrated blemished animals,

he does not receive lashes,

since the sanctity did not take effect at all.

And it is in these circumstances that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda said that the unwitting act was included like the intentional act with regard to substitution.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: The mixed-breed animal, the animal with a fatal condition, the animal born by caesarean section, the tumtum, and the androgynos are not consecrated, nor do they consecrate.

The Gemara explains the meaning of “are not consecrated” and the meaning of “nor do they consecrate.”

Shmuel said:

“Are not consecrated”,

that is,

with regard to substitution: One who substitutes one of these five animals for a consecrated animal does not cause substitution to take effect upon them. Even though substitution takes effect upon blemished animals, it does not take effect upon these; the reason will be explained below.

All the more so, they do not acquire sanctity through an initial act of consecration, when one consecrates them with inherent sanctity for the altar. They acquire only monetary sanctity, like ordinary wood and stones, and may be redeemed without a physical defect. “

And all the more so, they do not acquire sanctity at the initial consecration, when one consecrates them with intrinsic sanctity for the altar; rather, they acquire only monetary sanctity, like mere wood and stones, and may be redeemed without a blemish. “

Nor do they consecrate,”

others

to effect substitution.

If they are consecrated [and below it will be explained how they became consecrated], and one substituted a non-sacred animal for them, the substitution does not take effect.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Meir said,

“And since they are not consecrated, how can they consecrate?”

And why is it necessary to state that they do not consecrate?

Rather, you find this only when one consecrates an animal and afterward it becomes subject to a fatal condition, or when one consecrates a fetus

in its mother’s womb [see above, 11a],

and it emerges by caesarean section .

Even though they are consecrated, they do not effect substitution.

But in the case of a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, and an androgynos, you cannot find

that they are consecrated through verbal consecration, since they are defective from the beginning of their formation,

except as consecrated offspring,

an offspring of a consecrated animal that became pregnant and gave birth to a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, or an androgynos. These offspring become consecrated on their own with the sanctity of the mother, because “a fetus is the thigh of its mother.” And concerning them Rabbi Elazar had to state that substitution does not take effect upon them.

And

these matters are stated

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an offspring,

of consecrated animals [when it is not one of these five defective types],

effects substitution; therefore it was necessary to teach us that these do not effect substitution. For according to the Sages, who hold that an offspring does not effect substitution at all, it is obvious that these defective offspring do not effect substitution!

Therefore, it was necessary to teach us that these animals do not effect temura. But according to the Sages, who hold that the offspring of a consecrated animal never effects temura, it is obvious that these defective animals do not effect temura!

The Gemara now explains the reason for Rabbi Elazar’s ruling.

Rava said,

“What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar?”

Because he holds that their status is

like that of an impure animal,

such as a camel or donkey.

Just as an impure animal cannot be sacrificed and intrinsic sanctity does not descend

upon it,

intrinsic sanctity,

but only monetary sanctity, like mere wood and stones,

so too these,

these five defective animals,

, which do not

serve as sacrifices, and

therefore

sanctity does not descend upon them

of the body.

Rav Pappa said to Rava

:

How can you say that anyone unfit for sacrifice does not acquire intrinsic sanctity?

But a blemished animal cannot be sacrificed, and

nevertheless

intrinsic sanctity descends upon it

if one effects substitution with a blemished animal, substitution takes effect upon it, as we learned in our Mishna. Why, then, should the sanctity of substitution not take effect upon these five?

And likewise, if its blemish preceded its consecration, it effects substitution, as explained above [9a], and then a more stringent sanctity takes effect upon the substitute. But this animal, whose fatal condition preceded its consecration [according to Rabbi Meir’s statement], why does it not effect substitution?

He said to him,

Rava: A blemished animal is not comparable to these, because

a blemished animal,

in any event,

can be sacrificed as its own kind, since other unblemished animals of its kind can be sacrificed. This is not so with these: A mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, and an androgynos are abnormal creatures, and likewise an animal born by caesarean section is something “astonishing” to a person,

and because they are abnormal creatures, they are considered a kind unto themselves; therefore they are called creatures that cannot be sacrificed as their own kind [and the Gemara will challenge this concerning an animal with a fatal condition]. A blemished animal, by contrast, is not abnormal and is not a kind unto itself; rather, the animal itself is unfit for sacrifice.

That is, these defective animals resemble an impure animal more closely, in that no animal of the impure animal’s kind can be sacrificed, than they resemble a blemished animal, whose deficiency concerns only this individual animal and not the entire species.

And we challenge this:

If so, an animal with a fatal condition can also be sacrificed as its own kind

since the entire species can be sacrificed apart from this one animal that developed a fatal condition. Why, then, should it not be compared to a blemished animal? And why should substitution not take effect upon it, and why should it not effect substitution, just as a blemished animal effects substitution and is subject to substitution?

Rather, Rava said,

their similarity to an impure animal is not that no animal of their kind can be sacrificed. Rather, they are

like an impure animal

in a different respect, namely:

Just as an impure animal

has

a bodily disqualification, so too all

these have

a bodily disqualification.

Just as an impure animal is not lacking anything, but its entire body is unfit for sacrifice, so too all these—a mixed-breed animal, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos—are not disqualified because of a deficiency [and there are also fatal conditions that involve no deficiency, such as a perforated membrane over the brain when nothing is missing from it, or other fatal conditions involving perforation]; rather, the entire body is unfit for sacrifice.

This excludes

a blemished animal, which is not comparable to them, since it does not have a deficiency throughout its body, but rather

it is disqualified because of a deficiency,

only one of its limbs is missing .

And we raise an objection:

Rav Adda said to Rava:

Are all בעלי מומין merely cases of a missing limb?!

one limb longer than the other and closed-hoofed”

is written in the passage concerning defects

of defects [Leviticus 22],

and these—

the sarua and the kalut, in which one limb, such as a leg, is larger than the other, or whose hooves are kalut [closed]; and these defects contain no “deficiency” at all, while their disqualification

is a disqualification of the body.

They are disqualified for sacrifice, and nevertheless they are included in “good or bad” and effect temura—

And in what way are these five defective animals different from “the sarua and the kalut”?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rava said:

the truth is as I said initially:

Just as in the case of a non-kosher animal, there is no other animal of its kind, so too, any animal for which there is no other animal of its kind; this excludes a בעל מום, since there are animals of its kind—

What will you say—

and as for what you objected to this:

Is there not also a tereifa among its kind?

We can answer: Although a tereifa resembles a בעל מום with regard to “there are animals of its kind,” and in this respect does not resemble a non-kosher animal, nevertheless, in another respect

it does not resemble

rather, it resembles a non-kosher animal. And in what respect?

A non-kosher animal is forbidden to be eaten, and a tereifa is forbidden to be eaten; by contrast,

a בעל מום is permitted to be eaten.

It therefore differs from

a בעל מום, which is permitted to be eaten;

its disqualification applies only to sacrifice, whereas a tereifa is forbidden even to be eaten.

We have learned that Rabbi Meir explains Rabbi Eliezer’s statement as referring to one who consecrates an animal and it subsequently becomes a tereifa. Since kedushat haguf took effect upon it, one might have thought that an unconsecrated animal could be designated in relation to it with the sanctity of temura. Therefore Rabbi Elazar said that this is not so, and temura cannot be designated in relation to it.

By contrast, when one consecrates a tereifa, kedushat haguf does not take effect at all; only kedushat damim takes effect, as when one consecrates wood or stones.

The Gemara cites a dispute among the amoraim concerning this law, in the case of one who consecrates a tereifa.

Shmuel said: One who consecrates a tereifa

it is consecrated, and

it requires a permanent blemish in order to redeem it

like other consecrated animals in which a blemish developed.

This wording, “in order to redeem it,” indicates that it requires redemption, and that redemption is effective in permitting it. Now, even after it is permitted through redemption, it may be permitted only for consumption by dogs and not for human consumption, since it is a tereifa. Therefore we ask:

Does

this prove

that Shmuel holds

that consecrated animals may be redeemed

in order

to feed them to dogs?!

But the tanna’im disputed this, and we rule in accordance with the anonymous Mishna that consecrated animals may not be redeemed in order to feed them to dogs; rather, they must die and be buried in their state of sanctity.

And we answer:

Rather, say:

One who consecrates a tereifa

confers upon it sanctity until death;

it is to be buried and not redeemed.

And Rabbi Oshaya says:

One who consecrates a tereifa

has done no more than consecrate wood or stones;

neither kedushat damim nor kedushat haguf takes effect upon it, and it may be redeemed even for consumption by dogs.

Ta shma .

The Gemara cites our Mishna to challenge Shmuel:

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: A mixed-breed animal, an animal born by caesarean section, a tereifa, a tumtum, and an androgynos neither become consecrated nor consecrate—

And Shmuel said: “They neither become consecrated” means through temura, and “nor consecrate” means that they do not effect temura—

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir said: Since they do not become consecrated—

from where can they consecrate?

Rather, you find this only when one consecrates an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa—

And we infer:

The reason,

the entire reason that it becomes consecrated is

that he consecrated

it before it was a tereifa,

and afterward it became a tereifa—

This implies

that if

it was originally a tereifa—

kedushat haguf does not take effect upon it;

only kedushat damim takes effect, in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya—and this is difficult for Shmuel, who holds that kedushat damim takes effect upon it?