Temurah 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

A. The meaning of “Temura” is the exchange of a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal. B. The “exchange,” or substitution, of a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal causes the sanctity of a sacrifice to take hold of the non-sacred animal, and it is called a “sacrifice of Temura.” However, the exchange or substitution does not remove the sanctity from the original sacrificial animal; rather, it remains in its sanctity, just as it was before the exchange. C. The manner of performing the exchange is as follows: When two animals are standing before the person performing the exchange, one non-sacred and one sacrificial, and the “exchanger” says: “Let this non-sacred animal be in place of this sacrificial animal!” Mishna:

1.

Everyone performs Temura, both men and women.

The Gemara will explain what the novelty is in the fact that women perform Temura, and it will likewise explain what the word “everyone” comes to include.

The Mishna explains that the wording “everyone performs Temura”

does not

say

that a person is permitted to perform an exchange,

for the Torah prohibited performing an exchange, as it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “He shall not exchange.”

Rather,

after the fact,

if he performed the exchange, the exchange takes effect.

The sanctity takes hold of the non-sacred animal, and it is called a “sacrifice of Temura,” and both animals are sacred.

2.

And he receives

the person who performs the exchange

the forty

lashes, for violating the prohibition “He shall not exchange.”

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the wording of the Mishna, which seemingly contains a contradiction.

This itself is difficult: You said

at first

“Everyone performs Temura,”

which implies that it is permitted to exchange a consecrated animal for a non-sacred animal

ab initio. And then it teaches,

and the tanna taught again in the Mishna,

“Not that a person is permitted to perform an exchange,”

which implies that the exchange takes effect only

after the fact,

whereas ab initio it is prohibited to perform an exchange?

The Gemara rejects the questioner’s statement:

Can you really say that,

that you would interpret the beginning of the Mishna,

“Everyone performs Temura,”

as wording indicating

that it is permitted ab initio?!

For if you interpret it in this way,

instead of this being difficult to you from the Mishna,

before you raise a difficulty from the latter clause of the Mishna,

let it be difficult to you from a verse,

from what the Torah explicitly prohibited,

as it is written [

there ]

“He shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute it,”

and how could one even consider interpreting the wording of the Mishna, “Everyone performs Temura,” as permission to perform an exchange even ab initio?

Rather, Rav Yehuda said:

The Mishna is not saying that it is permitted to perform an exchange ab initio. Rather,

this is what it teaches:

This is what the tanna taught in the Mishna: 1.

Everyone

causes

the animal to acquire the sanctity of Temura. For if any of them performed an exchange, the exchange takes effect,

both men and women.

2.

And not

that a person is permitted to perform an exchange. Rather, if he performed an exchange, the exchange takes effect. And he receives the forty lashes.

The sugya of whether an heir performs Temura and whether an heir performs semikha

We learned in our Mishna:

Everyone performs Temura.

The Gemara asks:

“Everyone”—

what does it come to include?

What does the word “everyone” come to include?

To include

it comes to include

an heir,

who inherited a sacrifice that his father had consecrated but had not managed to offer during his lifetime. The Mishna teaches that even if an heir performed an exchange of his father’s sacrifice for a non-sacred animal, the exchange takes effect. That is, although a person cannot perform an exchange with a sacrifice that does not belong to him, nevertheless, an heir can perform an exchange. For purposes of the laws of Temura, a sacrifice that a person inherits from his father is not considered a “sacrifice that does not belong to him,” as will be explained below,

and this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees and does not hold this way.

For it was taught:

As we learned in a beraita discussing the laws of semikha and Temura:

An heir performs semikha

on a sacrifice that his father consecrated [but did not manage to offer before he died]. And likewise,

an heir performs Temura; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not perform semikha, and an heir does not perform Temura,

so that his substitute does not become a substitute.

The Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that an heir does not perform Temura?

He derives

the law of

“the beginning of consecration,”

the law of Temura, in which the animal’s sanctity begins when it is to acquire sanctity,

from “the end of consecration,”

the law of semikha, which is performed after the animal has been consecrated, shortly before slaughter.

Just as at the end of consecration [

semikha ],

an heir does not perform semikha,

as will be explained,

so at the beginning of consecration [

Temura ],

an heir does not perform Temura.

And semikha itself—from where do we derive it?

From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive the halakha that an heir does not perform semikha, from which he then learns that an heir does not perform Temura?

Three instances of “his offering” are written

in the passage concerning peace-offerings [Leviticus 3]. Three times “his offering” is stated with regard to semikha, rather than “the offering.” This wording indicates that it comes to exclude semikha on another person’s sacrifice:

One

of them is expounded as

“his offering,” and not the offering of a gentile.

If a gentile brings a sacrifice, although it is sacred and is offered [as explained on the following page], nevertheless it is not subject to semikha.

And one

is expounded as

“his offering,” and not the offering of his fellow.

One who brings his fellow’s sacrifice [as his agent] does not perform semikha on it.

And one

is expounded as

“his offering,” and not his father’s offering,

as explained.

From this exposition Rabbi Yehuda learns that an heir does not perform semikha.

We raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that an heir performs semikha,

there is a difficulty:

Is it not written “his offering,”

which implies that he performs semikha only on his own sacrifice, and not on his father’s sacrifice?

We answer: Rabbi Meir did not expound “his offering” to exclude an heir. For that

particular

third instance of “his offering”

is needed,

to be expounded for another purpose,

to include

all joint owners

partners who joined together to bring a sacrifice,

in the law of semikha.

Each of them performs semikha on the sacrifice, declaring that it is “his offering,” belonging to each and every one of the partners. Since he has no exposition excluding an heir, Rabbi Meir holds that an heir performs semikha.

We raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yehuda:

“His offering” comes to include “all joint owners”; how can he derive from it an exclusion of an heir?

We answer: Rabbi Yehuda

does not accept the concept of “joint owners with regard to semikha.”

He does not hold this way. In his view, the sacrifice of partners does not require semikha.

What is the reason?

Because their sacrifice is not individually designated as theirs. Since it does not belong entirely to any one of them alone, it is not considered “his offering.”

Thus, “his offering” remains available to exclude the case in which an heir performs semikha on his father’s sacrifice.

And if you wish, say: He does accept it after all.

Rabbi Yehuda indeed holds that joint owners perform semikha.

The offering of a gentile and the offering of his fellow are excluded by one verse.

Both are excluded from semikha by means of a single verse: The word “his offering” implies that only his own sacrifice requires semikha, and not a sacrifice that he brings as the agent of others, whether it belongs to his fellow Jew or to a gentile .

Therefore, one instance of “his offering” is expounded to exclude the offering of his fellow Jew and that of a gentile, while the second is expounded to exclude an heir. Accordingly, from one “his offering” he expounds to exclude the offering of his fellow Jew and that of gentiles, and from the second he expounds to exclude an heir.

And one remains extra

for him,

the third “his offering” remains,

to

include

joint owners with regard to semikha.

This is Rabbi Yehuda’s position, and Rabbi Meir’s response to it.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Meir’s position:

And Rabbi Meir, who says that an heir performs Temura—what is the reason? He could say to you:

The Torah states:

“And if he shall exchange

an animal for an animal.” The verse could have said, “And if he exchanges,” but the doubled wording “and if he shall indeed exchange” comes

to include an heir.