Temurah 17a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

The Torah said, “And it shall be, it and its substitute shall be sacred,” and we expound “it shall be”:

It made

the Torah, that is, the Torah included

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

and this will be explained in the Gemara.

Until here we have learned the differences between substitution and the initial consecration, and now the Mishna explains in what consecrated animals and substitution are alike:

Rabbi Elazar says: The mixed-breed animal

an animal born from the crossbreeding of a goat and a ewe,

the animal with a fatal defect

an animal that became mortally injured,

and the one born by caesarean section

whose mother had difficulty in giving birth, and they cut open the mother’s abdomen and removed the offspring through the side,

and the tumtum

whose sex is not recognizable whether male or female,

and the androgynos

who has male and female sexual characteristics—

They do not become sacred

with regard to substitution: if one substituted them, while they were unconsecrated, for a consecrated animal, the sanctity of substitution does not take hold of them, even though substitution takes effect upon an animal with a defect.

Nor do they consecrate

if they are consecrated, one may not confer the sanctity of substitution upon another unconsecrated animal through them. [

And the Gemara will explain how it is possible for them to be consecrated, since sanctity does not take hold of them, as will be explained.]

And all the more so, sanctity does not take hold of them at the initial consecration. Even though the sanctity of the body takes effect upon other animals disqualified for sacrifice, such as an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, an animal set aside for idolatry and an animal worshipped, a prostitute’s wage and the price of a dog, and they require a defect in order to redeem them, and after their redemption they are forbidden for shearing and labor, upon these five only sanctity of value takes effect, like mere wood and stones, and they are redeemed without a defect and are permitted for shearing and labor after their redemption .

And in this halakha substitution is equal to consecrated property.

Gemara:

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

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda?

The verse says

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

shall be sacred,”

and we expound: “it shall be,”

to include an unwitting act like an intentional act.

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner was

an unwitting act like an intentional act included?

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

1.

Said

Hezekiah:

His error was

that he thought it was permitted to substitute.

And therefore,

with regard to substitution he is flogged,

for he is flogged for the prohibition “He shall not substitute,” even though he is acting unwittingly. But

with regard to consecrated property,

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

he is not flogged.

Because we find lashes only for one who transgresses intentionally and after warning. But for the substitution he is flogged, for an unwitting act was included like an intentional act by “it shall be.”

Another formulation:

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

With regard to substitution, it becomes sacred,

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

with regard to consecrated property, it does not become sacred

at all, for his consecration was erroneous, and “an erroneous consecration is not a consecration.”

2.

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan say: He thought to say

“the substitute of a burnt-offering,”

but he erred

and said

“the substitute of a peace-offering.”

Another formulation: He thought to say

“the

black

ox that goes out of my house first shall be a substitute in place of this consecrated animal,” but he erred and said, “the

white ox”—

With regard to substitution,

the substitution takes hold, and

he is flogged,

whereas

with regard to consecrated property,

if this animal that he consecrated in error was an animal with a defect,

he is not flogged,

and it is not sacred at all , since his mouth and his heart are not in agreement; it is an erroneous consecration, and it is not a consecration.

3.

Rabbi Yohanan says: It is in a case where he says, “Let

this consecrated animal

go out

to unconsecrated status,

and let

this unconsecrated animal

enter

in its place into sanctity. And that consecrated animal is unblemished, and the truth is that it does not go out to unconsecrated status and both are sacred, as the Torah said. Rather, he erred and thought that it goes out to unconsecrated status like an animal with a defect [that is, ] he knew that it is forbidden to substitute, but thought that it is possible to redeem an unblemished animal; there is no act of substitution here, and he did not know that it does not go out to unconsecrated status, and had he known that both are sacred, he would not have substituted].

And similarly,

with regard to consecrated property,

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

when he said,

that is, he thought that

consecrated animals in which a defect developed may be eaten without redemption,

and he ate it. [The comparison is that in both cases he knew the fundamental rules of the halakha, but erred in their details]—

With regard to substitution, he is flogged,

whereas

with regard to consecrated property, he is not flogged

for the prohibition of misuse, since he is acting unwittingly.

4.

Rav Sheshet said: It is in a case where he says, “I shall enter this house, and consecrate,”

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

and substitute.”

And all this was

with his clear mind,

with a lucid mind,

and he entered

the house, and substituted

and consecrated without his clear mind,

for he was a man of confused thoughts and did not know what he was saying!

With regard to substitution,

the substitution takes hold, and

he is flogged,

even though he substituted without mental composure. Whereas

with regard to consecrated property,

the sanctity does not take effect, and it is an erroneous consecration; and if he consecrated an animal with a defect,

he is not flogged,

since the sanctity did not take effect at all.

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

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: The mixed-breed animal, the animal with a fatal defect, the one born by caesarean section, the tumtum, and the androgynos do not become sacred, nor do they consecrate.

The Gemara explains the meaning of “they do not become sacred” and the meaning of “nor do they consecrate.”

Samuel said: “

They do not become sacred,”

that is

with regard to substitution:

one who substitutes one of these five animals for a consecrated animal does not cause substitution to take hold in them. And even though substitution takes hold upon animals with defects, it does not take hold upon these, and the reason will be explained below.

And all the more so, sanctity does not take effect upon them at the initial consecration, when one consecrates them with sanctity of the body for the altar; rather, only sanctity of value, like mere wood and stones, and they are redeemed without a defect. “ Nor do they consecrate,”

others,

to make substitution.

If they are sacred [and below it will be explained how they became sacred], and one substituted an unconsecrated animal for them, substitution did not take hold.

It was taught

that we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Meir said,

“And since they do not become sacred, from where do they consecrate?”

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

Why is it necessary to state that they do not consecrate?

Rather, you find it only when one consecrates an animal and afterward it becomes mortally injured, or when one consecrates an offspring

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

and it emerges through the side .

And even though they are sacred, they do not effect substitution.

But the mixed-breed animal, the tumtum, and the androgynos, you find

that they are not sacred through verbal consecration, since they are defective from the beginning of their creation,

except as consecrated offspring,

an animal of consecrated property that became pregnant and gave birth to a mixed-breed animal, a tumtum, or an androgynos; these offspring become sacred on their own with the sanctity of the mother, for “the fetus is the thigh of its mother.” And concerning them Rabbi Eliezer needed to say that substitution does not take hold of them.

And

these words are stated

according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an offspring

of consecrated property [when it is not one of these five defective kinds]

effects substitution;

therefore it was necessary to inform 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 ones do not effect substitution!

And now the Gemara explains the reason of Rabbi Elazar. Rava said,

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar?

“What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar?”

Because he holds that their law is

like that of an impure animal,

a camel and a donkey.

Just as an impure animal is not sacrificed, and sanctity of the body does not descend

[come down]

upon it,

but only sanctity of value, like mere wood and stones,

so too these,

these five defective kinds,

, which do not

be sacrificed, and

therefore

sanctity of the

body does not descend upon them.

Rav Pappa said to

Rava:

How can you say that anyone who is unfit for sacrifice does not receive sanctity of the body?

But there is an animal with a defect, which is not sacrificed, and

nevertheless

sanctity of the body descends upon it;

if one substituted an animal with a defect, substitution takes hold upon it, as we learned in our Mishna, so why should the sanctity of substitution not take hold upon these five?

And likewise, if its consecration preceded its defect, it effects substitution, as explained above [9a], and then a more stringent sanctity takes effect upon the substitution, whereas this one, whose consecration preceded its fatal defect [according to Rabbi Meir], why does it not effect substitution?

He said to him

Rava: An animal with a defect is not similar to these, because

an animal with a defect,

at any rate,

is sacrificed within its kind;

other unblemished animals of its kind are sacrificed. This is not so with these: the mixed-breed animal, the tumtum, and the androgynos, which are unusual creatures, and likewise the one born by caesarean section, which is something “strange” to a person, and by virtue of their being unusual creatures they are considered a species in their own right; therefore they are called creatures that are not sacrificed within their kind [and the Gemara will raise a difficulty concerning the animal with a fatal defect]. This is not so with an animal with a defect, which is not unusual and is not a species in its own right; rather, the animal itself is unfit for sacrifice. That is, these defective kinds have more similarity to an impure animal, in that no animal of the species of an impure animal is sacrificed, than to animals with defects, where the deficiency is only in this individual animal and not in the entire species of the animal.

And we raise an objection:

If so, an animal with a fatal defect also is sacrificed within its kind;

for the entire species is sacrificed except for this individual animal that became mortally injured. Why should we not compare it to an animal with a defect, and why does substitution not take hold of it and why does it not effect substitution, just as an animal with a defect effects substitution and substitution takes hold upon it?

Rather, Rava said,

their similarity to an impure animal is not that no animal of their kind is sacrificed. Rather, in another definition they are

like an impure animal,

and it is this:

Just as an impure animal

has a disqualification that is

a disqualification of the body, so too all

these have a disqualification that is

a disqualification of the body,

and just as nothing is lacking from an impure animal, but its entire body is unfit for sacrifice, so too in all these—the mixed-breed animal, the one born by caesarean section, the tumtum, and the androgynos—their disqualification is not due to a deficiency [and with animals with fatal defects there are also cases in which there is no deficiency, such as when the membrane over the brain is punctured and nothing at all is missing from it, or other fatal defects involving a puncture], but the entire body is unfit for sacrifice.

To exclude

an animal with a defect, which is not similar to them: it does not have a deficiency throughout the body, but

its disqualification is a disqualification of deficiency,

only one of its limbs is lacking .

only one of its limbs is missing .

And we raise an objection:

Rav Adda said to Rava:

Is it so that all בעלי מומין are merely a deficiency of a limb?!

But “

having a limb extended and having closed hooves”

is written in the passage

of blemishes [Leviticus 22],

and these—

behold, one having a limb extended and one having closed hooves: an organ, such as a leg, is larger than its fellow, or its hooves are closed [joined], and there is no “deficiency” whatsoever in these blemishes, and their disqualification

is a disqualification of the body

and they are disqualified for sacrifice; nevertheless, they are included in “good and bad” and one effects temura with them—

And in what are these five defective ones different from “one having a limb extended and one having closed hooves”?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rava said,

the truth is as I said at the outset:

Like an impure animal: just as there is none of its kind, so too anything of which there is none of its kind; to exclude a בעל מום, for there is one of its kind—

What will you say,

and as for what you objected to this:

A tereifa too has one of its kind?

We shall answer: even though a tereifa resembles a בעל מום with regard to “there is one of its kind,” and in this it does not resemble an impure animal, nevertheless, in another matter

it does not resemble

a tereifa does not resemble

but rather an impure animal! And in what way?

An impure animal is forbidden for eating, and a tereifa is forbidden for eating; to exclude

and in this respect it differs from

a בעל מום, which is permitted for eating,

for its disqualification is only for sacrifice, whereas a tereifa is forbidden even for eating.

We have learned that Rabbi Meir explains the words of Rabbi Eliezer as referring to one who dedicates an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa. And since sanctity of the body took effect upon it, it would have been conceivable to say that one transfers onto an unconsecrated animal the sanctity of temura through it. Therefore Rabbi Elazar said that this is not so, and one does not effect temura through it.

But one who dedicates a tereifa: sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it at all, but only sanctity of monetary value, like one who dedicates wood and stones.

The Gemara brings a dispute among amoraim concerning this law, regarding one who dedicates a tereifa.

Shmuel said: One who dedicates a tereifa,

it is consecrated, and

it requires a permanent blemish in order to redeem it through it,

like other consecrated animals in which a blemish occurred.

This wording, “to redeem it through it,” implies that it requires redemption, and that redemption is effective for permitting it. Now, even after its being permitted through redemption, it will be permitted only for the eating of dogs and not for the eating of humans, since it is a tereifa. Therefore we ask:

Does

this teach

that Shmuel holds

that one redeems consecrated animals

in order

to feed them to dogs?!

But the tannaim disputed this, and we rule according to the anonymous Mishna that one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs; rather, they die and are buried in their sanctity?

And we answer:

Rather, say,

one who dedicates a tereifa

makes it consecrated for death,

and it is buried and not redeemed.

And Rabbi Oshaya says:

one who dedicates a tereifa

is only like one who dedicates wood and stones,

and neither sanctity of monetary value nor sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, and it is redeemed even for the eating of dogs.

Ta shma ,

the Gemara brings our Mishna to raise an objection against Shmuel:

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: Crossbreeds, a creature born by caesarean section, a tereifa, a creature of indeterminate sex, and a hermaphrodite are neither consecrated nor do they effect consecration—

And Shmuel said: “Are neither consecrated” means through temura, and “do not effect consecration” means to effect temura—

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

from where do they effect consecration?

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

And we infer:

The reason,

the entire reason that it is consecrated is because

he consecrated

it when it was not a tereifa,

and afterward it became a tereifa—

But,

if

it was a tereifa from the outset—

sanctity of the body did not descend upon it,

but only sanctity of monetary value, as Rabbi Oshaya said—and this is difficult for Shmuel, who holds that sanctity of monetary value took effect upon it?