Temurah 27b — the Talmud in English

And

this

said Rabbi Yirmeya: [it is referring] to ordinary land, and Rabbi Yona said: [it is referring] to consecrated property; both of them said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “

There is no ona'a for them; cancellation of the sale applies to them.”

Explanation: Concerning the Mishna there, “These are matters for which there is no ona'a ... and land ... and consecrated property,” Rabbi Yohanan said: “There is no ona'a for them. Cancellation of the sale applies to them.” That is to say, even though they do not have ona'a in the ona'a of a sixth, nevertheless, they do have cancellation of the sale in ona'a of more than a sixth. And the students of Rabbi Yohanan disagreed as to which law in the Mishna Rabbi Yohanan said has cancellation of the sale. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Concerning land, which, even though it was excluded from ona'a by a scriptural decree, as explained there, nevertheless has cancellation of the sale, since when it is more than a sixth it is a “mistaken sale,” and is not included in ona'a and was not excluded from ona'a. But concerning consecrated property, Rabbi Yohanan did not say that it has cancellation of the sale, since there is no mistake toward Heaven, and one cannot say that had the seller known [the true value], he would not have sold. And Rabbi Yona said: Rabbi Yohanan said this even concerning consecrated property, that if consecrated property was subject to ona'a of more than a sixth, the sale is entirely cancelled.

As explained, “cancellation of the sale” is not included within ona'a, and consecrated property was excluded from “ona'a” alone by a scriptural decree, but not from “cancellation of the sale.” And all the more so ordinary land, for the same reason that “cancellation of the sale” is not included within ona'a: if it was subject to ona'a of more than a sixth, the sale is cancelled. For if even concerning consecrated property, regarding which it would seemingly be appropriate to say “there is no mistake toward Heaven,” Rabbi Yohanan nevertheless holds that the sale is cancelled, all the more so concerning ordinary land.

And in brief: Rabbi Yohanan, according to Rabbi Yirmeya, holds that concerning consecrated property there is no cancellation of the sale for ona'a of more than a sixth; and according to Rabbi Yona, he holds that there is cancellation of the sale.

And now, if we say that our Mishna is speaking of cancellation of the sale, and concerning this Rabbi Yohanan said in our discussion that only by rabbinic ordinance must one make a valuation for it, whereas by Torah law the sale stands, this is difficult: this works out well according to Rabbi Yirmeya—Rabbi Yohanan properly holds that by Torah law there is no cancellation of the sale—but according to Rabbi Yona, there is a contradiction between Rabbi Yohanan’s statements?

And we answer:

Actually,

the true version is that Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish are speaking

of cancellation of the sale, and reverse [the attributions],

and reverse them!

Rabbi Yohanan’s [statement]

[is attributed] to Resh Lakish, and Resh Lakish’s [statement] to Rabbi Yohanan,

and Rabbi Yohanan said: By Torah law one must make a valuation for it, since cancellation of the sale applies to them; and Resh Lakish said: [It is] by rabbinic ordinance.

And we challenge:

Can you really say, “Reverse [the attributions]”?

This works out well,

this resolution—to reverse [the attributions] and say that Rabbi Yohanan holds that by Torah law one must make a valuation for it—works out well

according to the one who says,

namely Rabbi Yona:

concerning consecrated property, and all the more so concerning land,

as explained—

But according to the one who says,

namely Rabbi Yirmeya:

concerning land,

Rabbi Yohanan said that cancellation of the sale applies to them,

but cancellation of the sale does not apply to consecrated property,

and the sale stands even in the case of ona'a of more than a sixth, this is difficult:

how can you reverse this,

for if you reverse [the attributions], and Rabbi Yohanan is the one who says, “By Torah law one must make a valuation for it,” and the sale is cancelled, Rabbi Yohanan’s words would contradict his words, for Rabbi Yirmeya said in his name, “Cancellation of the sale does not apply to them,” and the sale stands?

And we answer:

He can say to you,

Rabbi Yirmeya: Do not reverse [the attributions]!

And Rabbi Yohanan is the one who says, “By rabbinic ordinance one must make a valuation for it”!

The Gemara explains the reason for the dispute between Rabbi Yona [whose view is the view of Resh Lakish when the attributions are not reversed], who holds “consecrated property has cancellation of the sale,” and Rabbi Yirmeya [whose view is the view of Rabbi Yohanan when the attributions are not reversed], who holds “consecrated property does not have cancellation of the sale.”

Let us say,

shall we say:

in

the words of

Shmuel they disagree—

for Shmuel said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one redeemed for one peruta

and this is much more than a sixth—

is redeemed,

since there is no ona'a for consecrated property, and there is also no cancellation of the sale, and it is not applicable to say that consecrated property made a mistake, for toward Heaven there is no mistake —

And let us say that

Rabbi Yona does not hold like Shmuel,

as explained, because a mistake of more than a sixth is not the manner of a sale; and since with regard to a sale it is nothing and is a mistaken sale, it is also nothing with regard to redemption—

and Rabbi Yirmeya does hold like Shmuel,

and when consecrated property was excluded from ona'a, it was entirely excluded, and there is no distinction between more than a sixth and a sixth; only concerning an ordinary person is it applicable to say that the person subject to ona'a made a mistake, whereas concerning consecrated property it is not applicable to say so.

Shall we say that they disagree concerning Shmuel?

And we conclude:

No! Both this master and that master hold like Shmuel,

Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmeya indeed hold like Shmuel,

and if

he intended to redeem,

and if he intended to redeem and to subject the consecrated property to ona'a, even by more than a sixth,

, it certainly is redeemed,

for it is redeemed in accordance with Shmuel—

but here, because he did not intend to redeem,

he does not wish to redeem it for less than its value; rather, he made a mistake and thought that this was its value. Therefore Rabbi Yona [and likewise Resh Lakish, who says “by Torah law one must make a valuation for it”] said that the redemption is void, since he made a mistake, and in his view Shmuel also holds this way. And Rabbi Yirmeya [and likewise Rabbi Yohanan, who says “by rabbinic ordinance one must make a valuation for it”] [holds] that nevertheless it is redeemed by Torah law.

And if you wish, I shall say: Actually, do not reverse [the attributions],

even according to Rabbi Yona, and our Mishna is not speaking at all of cancellation of the sale, but of ona'a! Namely: when one subjected consecrated property to ona'a by a sixth, and not only that, but even by less than a sixth. Therefore Rabbi Yohanan said that by rabbinic ordinance alone one must make a valuation for it, since consecrated property was excluded from ona'a by a scriptural decree, as explained.

And

what

is difficult for you

concerning Resh Lakish, who holds “by Torah law one must make a valuation for it,”

from the Mishna of “

These are matters

for which there is no ona'a ...

consecrated property”?

We shall answer: Resh Lakish interprets that Mishna

as

it was

explained

by

Rav Hisda.

For Rav Hisda said: What ,

what is the meaning of the Mishna

“

There is no ona'a for them”?—

They are not subject to the law of ona'a

even

when one subjects consecrated property to ona'a by

less than the measure of ona'a,

less than a sixth—

he retracts!

And this is the scriptural exposition according to Rav Hisda: “Do not wrong one another”—only concerning an ordinary “brother” was it stated that at the measure of a sixth the sale stands and he returns the money of the ona'a, and at less than a sixth he returns nothing; in contrast, concerning consecrated property, even at less than a sixth—he retracts. Therefore Resh Lakish said, “By Torah law he makes a valuation for it,” and by Torah law he returns [the money] to the consecrated property even at less than a sixth .

We learned in our Mishna: “And one must make a valuation for it” .

Ulla said: We said this only ,

these matters—that he returns the money of the ona'a to the consecrated property—do not apply

when the valuation was made by two,

when at the outset two people valued the consecrated property, and it was clarified through three others that the first ones had erred, and the latter ones value it at more than the first ones—

But when the valuation was made by three,

if at the outset three valued it,

even though one hundred came,

one hundred people came and valued it at more than the first three, and they say that the first ones erred—

he does not retract,

he does not retract from the first valuation, and he does not have to complete for the consecrated property the money of the ona'a.

And we challenge:

Is that so?

But it is not so!

And

this

Rav Safra said: When do we say

in what circumstances are

one hundred

people

like two,

like two, and

two like one hundred—

only

with regard to testimony,

for if two witnesses contradict one hundred witnesses, there is no superiority to the one hundred, and the law of this testimony is like a contradiction of two against two.

But with regard to estimation,

something requiring valuation and assessment—

according to everyone

we follow the majority of opinions,

and the valuation of the majority is accepted. And how did Ulla say that if the consecrated property was valued by three, he does not return the money according to the valuation of one hundred people?

Furthermore,

and there is another difficulty: not specifically if one hundred came, but

even

three and three,

where at first three valued it and three others came and stated a different valuation, higher than the valuation of the first ones—

do we not follow the latter [valuers],

and should the valuation of the latter not be accepted? And even though there is no majority of opinions here, and it is an evenly balanced doubt, nevertheless—

the hand of

consecrated property is on top,

and should the later valuation, which is more advantageous for the consecrated property, not be accepted? And we answer:

Ulla holds

that what the Mishna said, “

one must make a valuation for it”—

it is

by their words,

by rabbinic ordinance alone,

and every

matter that is

rabbinic—

the Sages were lenient in it,

therefore he holds that if at first three valued it, their valuation is accepted, and even if it is clarified that they reduced its value, he need not complete the ona'a.

Mishna:

We learned in the previous Mishna several expressions that are effective with regard to temura. And our Mishna continues to discuss expressions of temura and of consecration at the beginning of sanctity.

If he said, “

This is in place of a burnt-offering,” or if he said, “This is

in place of

a sin-offering,” but he did not say “this burnt-offering” or “this sin-offering,”

he

has said nothing.

But if he said, “This is

in place of this sin-offering,”

or “

in place of this burnt-offering,”

and a sin-offering or a burnt-offering is standing before him; or if he said, “

in place of the sin-offering

that I have at home”

or “

in place of the burnt-offering that I have at home,”

and indeed

he had one—

his words stand. For it is stated in the passage concerning temura [Leviticus 27], “He shall not exchange it and shall not substitute it,” and we expound: until the consecrated animal with which he made the substitution is known and designated.

его слова имеют силу. Причина в том, что о замене посвящённого животного сказано в разделе о замене: «Не заменит его и не поменяет его», и мы выводим отсюда: это возможно только в том случае, если посвящённый предмет, вместо которого производится замена, известен и точно определён.

If he said concerning an impure animal or a blemished animal, “

These are burnt-offerings”—

he has said nothing.

And it is not sanctified even with sanctity of value, since he did not consecrate it for its value, while for the altar it is unfit.

But if he said, “

These are for a burnt-offering”—

—

they are sold, and he brings a burnt-offering with their proceeds.

Since he said “for a burnt-offering,” this implies something that brings about a burnt-offering, that he consecrated it for the value of a burnt-offering. For if he wished to sacrifice it itself, he should have said, “These are burnt-offerings.”

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Our Mishna,

our Mishna, which said that if he said “in place of a sin-offering” or “in place of a burnt-offering,” and likewise in its latter clause, if he consecrated an impure or blemished animal, he has said nothing, and his words are in vain,

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir!

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Meir, this—

for Rabbi Meir holds that

a person does not utter his words in vain.

And so we learned [Arakhin 5]: One who assigns a valuation to one less than a month old [and “valuation” applies only to one who is a month old or more], Rabbi Meir says: He gives his value, the amount for which he would be sold in the marketplace as a slave. And the Sages say: He has said nothing. And there the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s reason, that “a person does not utter his words in vain”: he knows that there are no valuations for one less than a month old, and he completed his statement with the intention of assigning money. Accordingly, according to Rabbi Meir, also in the law of our Mishna he does not utter his words in vain, and his intention is for a sin-offering or a burnt-offering that he has at home. And likewise in the latter clause of the Mishna, Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that the one who consecrates intends to consecrate the impure animal with sanctity of value.

We learned in our Mishna:

“These are for a burnt-offering; they are sold, and he brings a burnt-offering with their proceeds.”

And the Gemara infers:

The reason,

the reason that it is sold without a blemish is because

they are an impure animal and a blemished animal,

they

are unfit,

they themselves are unfit for sacrifice, and therefore they

do not require a blemish,

and do not need to graze until a blemish occurs in them.

But when he sets aside a female animal for a guilt-offering or for a burnt-offering, it requires a blemish,

and it may not be sold without a blemish; even though they are unfit for the sanctity for which they were consecrated, nevertheless they were fit for another sanctity, had he consecrated them as peace-offerings.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

For we learned [above, 19b]: One who sets aside a female animal for a guilt-offering,

Rabbi Shimon says: It is sold without a blemish.

And our Mishna, from which it is inferred that it may not be sold until a blemish occurs in it, is not according to Rabbi Shimon, but according to the Sages, who hold that it grazes until it becomes blemished. The reason for their dispute is explained there.

Another wording,

the reason that he said, “This is for a burnt-offering,”

concerning an impure animal and a blemished animal,

which are entirely unfit for sacrifice.

But if he said concerning a female animal, “This is a sin-offering” or “This is a burnt-offering,”

which is fit for peace-offerings,

it is sanctified with bodily sanctity, so that it may not be sold without a blemish,

since, because it is sanctified with bodily sanctity for peace-offerings, its body too is sanctified,

and it grazes until it becomes blemished—

it would acquire intrinsic sanctity, meaning that it may not be sold without a blemish.

Since it acquires intrinsic sanctity for peace-offerings, it also acquires intrinsic sanctity,

and must graze until it becomes blemished—

Who is the tanna

who holds this?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda.

As it was taught [

above 20b],

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even

one who designates a female

for his burnt offering

does not effect a temura,

because it does not possess sanctity of bodily status and may be sold without a blemish. And our Mishna, from which it is precisely inferred that it may not be sold without a blemish, is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, but according to another view in accordance with Rabbi Shimon [and all the more so according to the Sages], which holds that it grazes until it develops a blemish, as explained there.

We have returned to you, chapter How Do They Employ Stratagems

A. A mixture of a minority of a prohibited substance with a majority of a permitted substance, where the prohibited minority is not discernible, the entire mixture is permitted. But the Sages said that “an important matter is not nullified by a majority,” and they prohibited several things that are not nullified on account of their importance.