Temurah 2a — the Talmud in English

A. The meaning of “Temura” is substitution of a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal. B. The “substitution,” or exchange, of a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal imparts the “sanctity of a sacrifice” to the non-sacred animal, and it is called a “Temura sacrifice.” But the substitution, or exchange, does not remove the sanctity from the first sacrificial animal; rather, it remains in its sanctity, as it was before the substitution. C. The manner of the substitution is as follows: when two animals stand before the person making the substitution, one a non-sacred animal and one a sacrificial animal, and the “person making the substitution” says: This non-sacred animal shall be in place of this sacrificial animal! Mishna:

1.

All perform substitution, both men and women.

The Gemara will explain what the novelty is that women perform substitution, and it will also explain what the word “all” comes to include.

And the Mishna explains that the wording “all perform substitution”

does not

say

that a person is permitted to perform substitution,

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

Rather, if

after the fact

he performed substitution, it is effective.

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

2.

And he receives

the person who performs substitution

the forty

lashes, for violating the negative commandment of “He shall not substitute.”

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the wording of the Mishna, in which there is apparently a contradiction.

This itself is difficult: You said

at first

“All perform substitution,”

which in the meaning of this wording indicates that it is permitted to substitute a sacred animal for a non-sacred animal

initially. And then it teaches,

and again the tannai taught in the Mishna,

“not that a person is permitted to perform substitution,”

whose meaning is that the substitution takes effect only

after the fact,

but initially it is prohibited to perform substitution?

And the Gemara rejects the words of the questioner:

But can you understand it?

Do you really think that the beginning of the Mishna’s words,

“All perform substitution,”

is an expression of

initially?!

For if you interpret it this way,

before the Mishna would be difficult for you,

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

let Scripture be difficult for you,

from what the Torah explicitly prohibited,

as it is written [

there ]

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

and how can it enter one’s mind to interpret the wording of the Mishna, “All perform substitution,” as permission to perform substitution even initially?

Rather, Rav Judah said:

The Mishna does not say that it is permitted to perform substitution initially, but

this is what it teaches,

this is what the tannai taught in the Mishna: 1.

All

impart

the sanctity of Temura to the animal. For all of them, if they performed substitution, their substitution is a substitution,

both men and women.

2.

And not

that a person is permitted to perform substitution. Rather, if he performed substitution, it is effective. And he receives the forty.

The discussion of an heir performing substitution and an heir placing his hands

We learned in our Mishna:

All perform substitution.

And the Gemara asks:

“All” —

to include what?

What does “all” come to include?

To include:

It comes to include

an heir,

who inherited a sacrifice that his father had set aside, but his father did not manage to offer it during his lifetime. And the Mishna informs us that even an heir who substituted his father’s sacrifice for a non-sacred animal has an effective substitution. That is, although a person does not perform substitution with a sacrifice that is not his, nevertheless, an heir does perform substitution. For a sacrifice that a person inherits from his father is not considered “a sacrifice that is not his” with regard to the law of substitution, as will be explained below,

and not in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

who disputes this and does not hold this way.

For it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita discussing the laws of “placing hands” and “substitution”:

An heir places his hands

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

an heir performs substitution, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: An heir does not place his hands, and an heir does not perform substitution,

for his substitution does not become an effective substitution.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

What is Rabbi Judah’s reason,

who holds that an heir does not perform substitution?

He derives

the law of substitution, in which the sanctity of the animal begins, when it must be imbued with sanctity,

“the beginning of consecration,”

from

“the end of consecration,”

from the law of placing hands, which is performed after the animal has become consecrated, close to slaughter.

Just as at the end of consecration [

placing hands ],

an heir does not place his hands,

as will be explained,

so at the beginning of consecration [

substitution ],

an heir does not perform substitution.

And placing hands itself, from where do we derive it?

From where does Rabbi Judah have the law that an heir does not place his hands, from which he learned concerning substitution that an heir does not perform substitution?

Three instances of “his sacrifice” are written

in the section of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3]. Three times “his sacrifice” is stated concerning placing hands, and Scripture did not say “a sacrifice.” The meaning of this wording is that it comes to exclude placing hands on another person’s sacrifice:

One:

One of them is expounded:

“His sacrifice,” and not the sacrifice of an idolater.

If a non-Jew brought a sacrifice, although it is sacred and it is offered [as explained on page 2b], nevertheless, the law of placing hands does not apply to it.

And one

is expounded:

“His sacrifice,” and not the sacrifice of his fellow.

One who brings his fellow’s sacrifice [as his agent] is not subject to the law of placing hands.

And one

is expounded:

“His sacrifice,” and not his father’s sacrifice,

as explained.

And from this interpretation Rabbi Judah learned that an heir does not place his hands.

And we object:

But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that an heir places his hands,

there is a difficulty:

And “his sacrifice” is written,

and it implies that he places his hands only on his own sacrifice, and not on his father’s sacrifice?

And we answer: Rabbi Meir did not expound “his sacrifice” to exclude an heir. For

that

third “his sacrifice”

is needed for him,

he needed it for another interpretation,

to include

all the partners

who joined together to bring a sacrifice together

for placing hands.

Each one of them places his hands on the sacrifice, saying that it is “his sacrifice” of each and every one of the partners. And since he has no interpretation excluding an heir, Rabbi Meir holds that an heir places his hands.

And we object:

But Rabbi Judah: “His sacrifice” comes to include “all the partners,” so how does he derive from it to exclude an heir?

And we answer:

Rabbi Judah

does not hold of “partners for placing hands.”

He does not hold this way. And according to him, the sacrifice of partners does not require placing hands.

What is the reason?

For it is not exclusively their sacrifice. Since it does not belong entirely to any one of them alone, it is not considered “his sacrifice.”

And “his sacrifice” remains to exclude that an heir does not place his hands on his father’s sacrifice.

And if you wish, say: Actually, he does hold of it.

Rabbi Judah indeed holds that partners place their hands.

And the sacrifice of an idolater and the sacrifice of his fellow are derived from one verse.

Both are excluded from placing hands by one verse, for the word “his sacrifice” implies that only his sacrifice requires placing hands, and not a sacrifice that he brings as an agent for others, whether it belongs to his fellow Israelite or to an idolater .

Therefore, from one “his sacrifice” he expounded to exclude the sacrifice of his fellow Israelite and of idolaters, and from the second he expounded to exclude an heir.

And one remained over

for him,

the third “his sacrifice” remained for him,

to

include

partners for placing hands.

This is Rabbi Judah’s position, and what Rabbi Meir answered him.

Now the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s position:

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

The Torah said,

“And if he shall substitute, he shall substitute

an animal for an animal.” The verse could have said “And if he substitutes,” and the doubled wording “if he shall substitute, he shall substitute” comes

to include the heir.