Temurah 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei concerning “this is a substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim.” And, as explained, the basis of their dispute is that Rabbi Meir holds: “The first expression is grasped”; therefore, even if it is clear to us that he intended to confer both sanctities, the first one is automatically established. And Rabbi Yosei holds: “A person is also grasped by the conclusion of his words”; since from the outset he intended to confer both sanctities, both are established. The Gemara cites the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explains the basis of their dispute differently. According to him, they disagree concerning an assessment of the intention of the one consecrating the animal when he says, “This is a substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim”: Did he intend to confer them one after the other, in which case the second sanctity was not established, or did he intend both of them?

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef

said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree,

even Rabbi Yosei,

when he says, “

Let this take effect

as a substitute for an olah,

and afterward let this take effect,

as a substitute for a shelamim”:

everyone agrees that the first expression is grasped,

and the substitute for a shelamim does not take effect, because one sanctity cannot take effect upon another sanctity.

Likewise, when he says, “

Let this not take effect,

as a substitute for an olah,

unless that one takes effect,

as a substitute for a shelamim,” everyone agrees, even Rabbi Meir, that

the second one also takes effect,

since he intended both substitutes to take effect. Half of the animal will therefore be a substitute for an olah and half a substitute for a shelamim; it will graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish, and then it will be sold. With the value of one half he will bring a substitute for an olah, and with the value of the other half he will bring a substitute for a shelamim.

They disagree only in a case such as that of our Mishna, where he says, “

This animal is

a substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim”

(without the conjunction “and”)—

For Rabbi Meir reasons: Since he should have said,

if indeed his intention was to confer both substitutes upon it simultaneously, he should have said, “

A substitute for an olah and a shelamim”

(and then the meaning of his statement would be as though he had said, “Let this not take effect unless that one takes effect,” and both sanctities would take effect),

but he said, “

A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim,”

repeating his words by saying “substitute” twice;

it is equivalent to his saying, “

Let this take effect, and afterward let that one take effect”

(the version of the Gemara in Tractate Zevaḥim:

This proves that he is retracting),

and he cannot retract, since the sanctity of the olah-substitute has already been established.

And Rabbi Yosei would say to you

even when he says, “A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim,” both sanctities take effect. It is equivalent to saying, “Let this not take effect unless that one takes effect,” and it is not like someone who speaks and then retracts. The reason he says “substitute” twice is that

he holds that this man,

is mistaken and thinks that

if I say,

if I say, “

A substitute for an olah and a shelamim”

(as Rabbi Meir argues),

it will have sanctity but may not be offered.

Therefore,

let me say,

it is preferable for me to say, “

A substitute”

for each

(of the animals),

each and every one,

so that the sanctity of an olah will extend throughout the entire animal and the sanctity of a shelamim will extend throughout the entire animal, and now it can be offered. This is why he said it in that manner. In truth, he intended to consecrate it with two sanctities, like one who says, “Let this not take effect unless that one takes effect”; both take effect, and the animal is sold after it develops a disqualifying blemish. He brings a substitute for an olah with the value of half of it and a substitute for a shelamim with the value of the other half.

Alternatively

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree, and all of them

disagree only when he says, “

A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim.”

For Rabbi Meir reasons: Since he should have said, “

A substitute for an olah and a shelamim,”

but he said, “

A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim”—

he is retracting,

he is retracting

from

his statement, “

a substitute for an olah,”

to “

a substitute for a shelamim”;

and since this is so—

he grasps the beginning of his words, “

a substitute for an olah,”

and cannot retract.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: This man is mistaken,

this person consecrating the animal is mistaken,

for he holds that

if I do not say, “

A substitute”

for an olah and for a shelamim—

the substitute for both of them will not take effect.

And that is why he said, “

A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim.”

Rather, in truth,

it is a substitute for an olah and a shelamim that he needs to say,

and he thinks to himself that it is advantageous for him to say, “A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim,” so that both will take effect.

Since this is so,

that is, since it is not clear that this was his intention,

we investigate him,

we question him:

If he says: I was retracting when I retracted,

I first consecrated it as a substitute for an olah, and then retracted and consecrated it also as a substitute for a shelamim,

the first expression is grasped,

for the sanctity of an olah took effect, and he is not permitted to retract.

But if he says that he

intended

from the outset for it to be a substitute for both,

for the substitution of both,

his words stand.

But it was taught,

and likewise we learned in a beraita: One who says, “

This is a substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim”—

this is a substitute for an olah, the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: It shall graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish, it shall be sold, and with the value of half of it he shall bring a substitute for an olah, and with the value of half of it he shall bring a substitute for a shelamim.

Rabbi Yosei says: Let him be questioned! If he says, “

This is what I intended,”

for both sanctities, “

but I could not utter the two names simultaneously”—

his words stand.

If he says, “

After I had uttered”

(after I had uttered)

the first name, “

I went back and uttered the second name”—

his latter words have no effect,

and he cannot reconsider and retract.

The Gemara asks:

The Sages are identical to Rabbi Yosei

for surely the Sages could not have said that his words stand when he says that he consecrated it as a substitute for an olah and afterward retracted; rather, they must have said this when he said that from the outset he intended this. If so, what is the difference between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei?

The Gemara answers:

The entire statement is taught as the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

And this is how the beraita is to be understood: The Sages say: It shall graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish, it shall be sold, and with the value of half of it he shall bring an olah and with the value of half of it a shelamim. When is this statement said? When he says, “This is what I intended from the outset.” But when he says, “I retracted,” the first expression is grasped, as Rabbi Yosei says, and so on.

Thus far, the Mishna and the beraita dealt with one who says, “A substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim.” The following beraita deals with one who says, “Half of it is a substitute for an olah and half of it is a substitute for a shelamim.”

The Sages taught

One who says

regarding a non-sacred animal standing beside two animals, one an olah and the other a shelamim, “

This animal is half a substitute for an olah and half a substitute for a shelamim”—

the entire animal shall be offered as an olah,

these are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

According to his method, he holds [according to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef] that it is equivalent to saying, “Let this take effect, and afterward let that one take effect.” Since the sanctity of an olah had already taken effect upon half of it, it took effect throughout the entire animal. As explained above (11b), although when one says, “The leg of this animal is an olah,” Rabbi Meir holds that the sanctity does not spread throughout the entire animal, nevertheless he concedes that when one consecrates something upon which the animal’s life depends, the sanctity spreads throughout the entire animal. Therefore, when he consecrated half an animal as a substitute for an olah—certainly, the animal’s life depends upon half the animal—the sanctity of an olah spread over the entire animal, and another sanctity could no longer take effect.

And the Sages say: It shall graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish, it shall be sold, and with the value of half of it he shall bring a substitute for an olah and with the value of half of it a substitute for a shelamim,

as will be explained.

Rabbi Yosei says

we question him;

if this is what he intended from the outset,

that both sanctities should take effect upon it,

since it is impossible to utter two names simultaneously—

his words stand.

The Gemara asks in astonishment: But

Rabbi Yosei is identical to the Sages,

for surely the Sages said that his words stand only when he says that from the outset he intended this. If so, what is the difference between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei?

The Gemara answers:

The entire statement is taught as the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

And this is how the beraita is to be understood: The Sages say: It shall graze, and so on. When is this statement said? When he says, “This is what I intended from the outset.” But when he says, “I retracted”— \-

the first expression is grasped, as Rabbi Yosei says, and so on.

The Gemara cites another beraita concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei. It was taught in another beraita:

One who says, “

This animal is

half an olah and half a ḥatat”—

the entire animal shall be offered as an olah, the statement of Rabbi Meir,

because the first expression is grasped, and once the sanctity of an olah took effect upon half of it, the sanctity spreads over the entire animal, as explained: half of it is something upon which the animal’s life depends.

Rabbi Yosei says: It shall die,

because “a person is also grasped by the conclusion of his words,” and since he is not obligated to bring a ḥatat, its status is that it must die.

The beraita continues: And

all the Sages

agree,

and do not disagree,

when he says, “

Half of it is a ḥatat and half of it an olah,”

putting the ḥatat before the olah—

that it must die.

The Gemara clarifies: The statement of the beraita, “

agree”—

who is it,

who are the ones who agree?

You might say:

Rabbi Meir,

who in the first clause says that it shall be offered as an olah, agrees here with Rabbi Yosei and holds like him that it must die. But this is difficult:

It is obvious!

For Rabbi Meir holds, “The first expression is grasped,” and if it was established as a ḥatat, the sanctity of a ḥatat spread throughout the entire animal. Since he is not obligated to bring a ḥatat, it is obvious that it must die. What does the beraita teach us?

The Gemara answers: It is not entirely obvious—

lest you say, if it had not taught us,

if the beraita had not taught us this,

we would have said,

it would have been possible to say:

The reason of Rabbi Meir is not because the first expression is grasped; rather, this is the reason:

because he holds that a

mixed ḥatat,

in which two sanctities have become mixed,

may be offered!

The two sanctities take effect upon it, but it may be offered because it contains something fit to be offered

(whereas Rabbi Yosei disagrees and holds that “a mixed sanctity may not be offered”), and

if this were so, then

even when he says, “

Half of it is a ḥatat”

at the outset,

and afterward says, “

Half of it is an olah,”

it would

be offered—

This teaches us that it is not so!

This is not the reason for Rabbi Meir's opinion; rather, he distinguishes between stating “an olah” first and stating “a sin-offering” first because “the first formulation controls.”

The Gemara brings another beraita concerning this matter, and in this beraita the names of the tannaim are not mentioned.

It was taught in another beraita: It was said: “

This animal is half an olah and half a shelamim”—

it has sanctity but may not be offered;

it shall graze until it develops a blemish, and then it shall be sold, and with the proceeds of its half he shall bring an olah, and with the proceeds of its half he shall bring a shelamim;

and it makes temura:

one who substitutes an unconsecrated animal for it causes that animal to acquire the sanctity of temura;

and its substitute is like it ,

and it too shall graze until it develops a blemish, and then it shall be sold, and with the proceeds of its half he shall bring the substitute of an olah, and with the proceeds of its half he shall bring the substitute of a shelamim.

The Master said:

“It has sanctity but may not be offered”: Who is the author?

Who is the tanna who holds this opinion?—

It is Rabbi Yosei.

A difficulty was raised:

Is it not obvious that it has sanctity but may not be offered?

What is the beraita teaching us?

And we answer: Indeed, there is no need to teach us that it has sanctity but may not be offered;

rather, the statement “

its substitute

is like it”

was necessary for him

to teach us.

For it might have entered your mind

that one could say:

Granted,

indeed,

it itself may not be offered,

because it has a deficiency , nevertheless—

its substitute may be offered,

because it has no deficiency—

This teaches us

that the beraita teaches us that it too may not be offered. For

why is it different from the original, which may not be offered,

because

it has rejected sanctity—

its substitute, too, comes by virtue of rejected sanctity;

that is, it comes from it. And this is the principal novelty of the beraita.

The Gemara cites Rabbi Yohanan's statement concerning an animal half of which was consecrated and half of which was not consecrated, and concerning the law governing it and the law governing its substitute. Now, everyone agrees that when one consecrates half an animal, its sanctity spreads of its own accord over the whole animal, as explained. When does this apply? When the sanctity has the possibility of spreading and nothing prevents it from doing so. This is not the case when it has no possibility of spreading, such as an animal belonging to two partners, when one partner consecrated his share and the other did not, since “a person cannot consecrate something that does not belong to him”; therefore, the sanctity did not spread over the whole animal.

Rabbi Yohanan said: In the case of an animal belonging to two partners, one of them consecrated

one of them,

his half,

and now half of it was sacred and half unconsecrated,

and then he bought

from his partner

the other half,

and

consecrated it—

it has sanctity but may not be offered ,

since, at the outset, when he consecrated half of it, it was not fit to be offered, and it is “rejected sanctity” from the outset . It shall graze until it develops a blemish, and then it shall be sold, and he shall bring another animal with its proceeds.

And it makes temura, and its substitute

is like it,

and it too has sanctity but may not be offered, since it derives from rejected sanctity.