Temurah 26a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei concerning “the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim.” And as explained, the reason for their dispute is that Rabbi Meir holds: “the first expression is seized,” and even if it is clear to us that he wanted to impose both sanctities, the first is seized automatically. And Rabbi Yosei holds: “a person is also seized by the completion of his words,” and since from the outset he intended to impose both sanctities, both are seized. And the Gemara brings the statement of Rabbi Yohanan, explaining the reason for their dispute in another manner, according to which they dispute the “assessment of the intention of the one consecrating” when he says, “the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim”: what did he intend? Whether one after the other, and consequently the second was not seized, or both.

Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Yosef

said that Rabbi Yohanan said: All agree,

even Rabbi Yosei,

when he says, “

Let this take effect

as the substitution of an olah,

and afterward let this take effect,

as the substitution of a shelamim,”

everyone agrees that the first expression is seized,

and the substitution of a shelamim does not take effect, for sanctity cannot take effect upon sanctity.

Likewise, when he says, “

Let this not take effect,

as the substitution of an olah,

unless this one takes effect,

as the substitution of a shelamim,” everyone agrees, even Rabbi Meir, that

the second one also takes effect,

since he intended this, for the taking effect of both substitutions. Its half will be the substitution of an olah and its half the substitution of a shelamim; it will graze until a blemish occurs in it, and it will be sold; with the value of its half he will bring the substitution of an olah, and with the value of its half he will bring the substitution of a shelamim.

They disputed only in a case such as that of our Mishna, where he said, “

Behold, this is

the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim”

(without the conjunction “and”)—

For Rabbi Meir holds: Since he should have said,

if indeed his intention was to make both substitutions take effect simultaneously, he should have said, “

the substitution of an olah and a shelamim”

(and then the meaning of his statement would be like one who says, “Let this not take effect unless this one takes effect,” and both sanctities take effect),

but he said, “

the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim,”

and repeated his words by saying “substitution” and “substitution”;

it is like one who says, “

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

(the version of the Gemara in Tractate Zevahim:

This proves that he is retracting),

and he cannot retract, since the substitution of an olah has already been seized.

And Rabbi Yosei can say to you,

even when he says, “the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim,” both sanctities take effect, and it is like one who says, “Let this not take effect unless this one takes effect,” and it is not like one who says this and retracts. And the reason he says “substitution, substitution” is that

he holds that this man

is mistaken and thinks that

if I say,

if I say, “

the substitution of an olah and a shelamim”

(as Rabbi Meir argues),

it will be a sanctity but it may not be offered.

Therefore,

let me say

that it is preferable for me to say

“substitution”

for each

(of them),

each one, and the sanctity of an olah will spread throughout it and the sanctity of a shelamim throughout it, and now it may be offered. This is the reason he said so. Indeed, he intended to consecrate it with two sanctities, like one who says, “Let this not take effect unless this one takes effect”; both take effect, and it is sold after a blemish occurs in it, and he brings the substitution of an olah with the value of its half, and the substitution of a shelamim with the value of its half.

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.

Another formulation:

Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said: All agree, and all of them

disputed only when he says, “

the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim.”

For Rabbi Meir holds: Since he should have said

“the substitution of an olah and a shelamim,”

but he said

“the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim”—

he is retracting,

he is retracting

from

his statement, “

the substitution of an olah,”

to “

the substitution of a shelamim”;

and since this is so—

he seizes the beginning of his words,

“the substitution of an olah,”

and he cannot retract.

и он не может от них отказаться.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: This man is the one who is mistaken,

this one consecrating is mistaken;

for he holds

if I do not say

“substitution”

for an olah and for a shelamim—

the substitution of both of them will not be seized.

And for this reason he said, “

the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim.”

Rather, properly,

it is the substitution of an olah and a shelamim that he ought to say,

and he thinks to himself that it is worthwhile for him to say, “the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim,” so that both will take effect.

Since this is so,

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

we investigate him,

we question him:

if he says: I was retracting, I retracted,

I first consecrated it as the substitution of an olah and retracted and consecrated it also as the substitution of a shelamim,

the first expression is seized,

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

And if he says

intended

that he intended from the outset

for the substitution of both,

his words stand.

But it was taught,

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

Behold, this is the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim”—

behold, this is the substitution of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and with the value of its half he shall bring the substitution of an olah, and with the value of its half the substitution of a shelamim.

Rabbi Yosei says: He shall be investigated! If he says, “

For this I intended,”

for the two sanctities, “

but I was unable to pronounce the two names simultaneously”—

his words stand.

If he says, “

After I pronounced

(after I pronounced)

the first name,

I returned and pronounced the second name”—

his later words are nothing,

and he cannot reconsider and retract.

And the Gemara asks:

“The Sages” are Rabbi Yosei

for surely the Sages did not say that his words stand when he says that he consecrated it as the substitution of an olah and afterward retracted, but only when he says that from the outset he intended this; if so, what is the difference between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei?

And we answer:

It is all Rabbi Yosei whom he teaches.

And this is how the beraita is interpreted: The Sages say: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and with the value of its half he shall bring an olah and with the value of its half a shelamim. When do these words apply? When he says, “From the outset I intended this”; but when he says, “I retracted,” the first expression is seized, for Rabbi Yosei says, and so on.

Until here, the Mishna and the beraita discussed one who says, “the substitution of an olah, the substitution of a shelamim.” The following beraita discusses one who says, “half of it is the substitution of an olah and half of it is the substitution of a shelamim.”

The Sages taught:

One who says

concerning a nonconsecrated animal standing beside two animals, one an olah and the second a shelamim, “

This animal is half the substitution of an olah and half the substitution of a shelamim”—

all of it shall be offered as an olah,

these are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

According to his view, which holds [according to Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Yosef] that it is like one who says, “Let this take effect, and afterward let this take effect.” And since the sanctity of an olah had already seized its half, it seized all of it. As explained above (11b), although when one says, “the leg of this one is an olah,” Rabbi Meir holds that the sanctity does not spread throughout it, nevertheless he admits when one consecrates something upon which life depends that the sanctity spreads throughout it. Therefore, when he consecrated half an animal as the substitution of an olah—certainly life depends upon half an animal—the sanctity of an olah spread over the entire animal, and another sanctity no longer takes effect.

And the Sages say: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and with the value of its half he shall bring the substitution of an olah, and with the value of its half the substitution of a shelamim,

as will be explained.

Rabbi Yosei says:

he is investigated:

if he intended this from the outset,

that both sanctities should take effect upon it,

since it is impossible to utter two names simultaneously—

his words stand.

And the Gemara is astonished: Surely

Rabbi Yosei is the Sages;

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

And we answer:

It is all Rabbi Yosei whom he teaches.

And this is how the beraita is interpreted: The Sages say: It shall graze, and all of them, and so on. When do these words apply? When he says, “From the outset I intended this”; but when he says, “I retracted”— -

the first expression is seized. For Rabbi Yosei says, and so on.

The Gemara brings 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 hattat”—

all of it shall be offered as an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir,

because the first expression is seized, and once the sanctity of an olah was seized upon its half, the sanctity spreads over the entire animal, as explained, since its half is something upon which life depends.

Rabbi Yosei says: It shall die,

because “a person is also seized by the completion of his words,” and since he is not obligated to bring a hattat, its law is death.

And the beraita continues:

And

all the Sages

agree,

and they did not dispute,

when he says, “

Half a hattat and half an olah,”

and he gives precedence to the hattat over the olah—

that it shall die.

And the Gemara clarifies: What the beraita said, “

agree”—

who is it,

who are the ones who agree?

Perhaps you will say:

Rabbi Meir,

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

It is obvious!

For Rabbi Meir holds, “the first expression is seized,” and if it was seized as a hattat, the sanctity of a hattat spread throughout it, and he is not obligated to bring a hattat; it is obvious that it shall die. What is the beraita teaching us?

And we answer: It is not so simple—

What might you have said, if it had not taught us,

if the beraita had not taught us this,

we might have said,

it would have been possible to say:

The reason for Rabbi Meir is not because of the first expression being seized; rather, this is the reason,

because he holds:

a mixed hattat

in which two sanctities have become mixed—

may be offered!

And both sanctities take effect upon it, but it is offered since something fit for offering is mixed into it (and Rabbi Yosei disputes this and holds that “a mixed sanctity may not be offered”),

and

if this is said, then

even when he said “

half a hattat”

at the outset

and afterward said “

half an olah,”

it is

offered—

This teaches us, no!

This is not the reason for Rabbi Meir, and indeed he distinguishes between placing the olah first and placing the chatat first, because “one seizes the first expression.”

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

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

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

it has sanctity but is not offered,

and it shall graze until a blemish occurs in it, and it shall be sold, and he shall bring an olah with the money of its half and a shelamim with the money of its half;

and it effects substitution,

one who substitutes a non-sacred animal for it—the substitute is seized by the substitution;

and its substitution is like it ,

and it too shall graze until a blemish occurs in it, and it shall be sold, and he shall bring, with the money of its half, a substitution of an olah, and with the money of its half, a substitution of a shelamim.

The Master said:

“It has sanctity but is not offered”: Whose [opinion] is this?

Who is the tanna who holds this way?—

It is Rabbi Yose’s [opinion].

And this is difficult:

Is it not obvious that it has sanctity but is not offered?

And what does the beraita teach us?

And we answer: Indeed! There is no need to teach us that it has sanctity but is not offered;

rather,

“its substitution”

“is like it”

was necessary for him

to teach us.

For you might say,

there was room to say:

Granted,

indeed,

that it is not offered,

because there is a defect in it , nevertheless—

its substitution shall be offered,

because there is no defect in it—

This teaches us,

the beraita teaches us that it too is not offered. For

what difference is there between it, that it is not offered,

because

it is a sanctity that was rejected—

its substitution too comes by virtue of a rejected sanctity,

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

The Gemara brings Rabbi Yohanan’s statement concerning an animal half of which was consecrated and half of which was not consecrated, its law and the law of its substitution. Now, concerning one who consecrates half an animal, everyone agrees that its sanctity spreads of itself over the whole of it, as explained. When do these words apply? When the sanctity has the possibility of spreading and there is nothing preventing it, unlike when it has no possibility of spreading, such as an animal belonging to two partners, where one partner consecrated his share and the other did not consecrate his, and “a person cannot consecrate something that is not his”; therefore, it did not spread over the whole of it.

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 of it was non-sacred,

and he went back and purchased

he purchased immediately from his partner

his half,

the

other [half], and consecrated it—

it has sanctity but is not offered ,

since, at the outset, when he consecrated its half, it was not fit to be offered, and “its sanctity was rejected from the outset” . And it shall graze until a blemish occurs in it, and it shall be sold, and he shall bring another with its money.

And it effects substitution, and its substitution ![](pamud.bmp "

precise location of the column")

is like it,

and it too has sanctity but is not offered, since it comes from a rejected sanctity.