Temurah 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

For a person does not ordinarily calculate in this manner, as the image indicates!

As people say,

people are accustomed to say:

A small gourd today is better than a large gourd tomorrow.

This is a proverb: A small gourd available now is better than a large gourd available tomorrow. That is, it is preferable that I sell it now at its value, since perhaps even if I lower the price for him now, this will not benefit me at all in the future, as he will not give me his firstborn animals on another occasion.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains which types of animals, when one of them is used to make a substitution for the other, effect a valid temura.

One may effect substitution from sheep

of consecrated animals

for cattle,

of non-sacred animals.

And from cattle,

of consecrated animals,

for sheep,

of non-sacred animals.

And

likewise,

from lambs for goats, and from goats for lambs; from males for females, and from females for males.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

From unblemished animals,

of consecrated animals,

for animals with blemishes,

of non-sacred animals,

and from

animals with blemishes,

of consecrated animals,

for unblemished animals,

of non-sacred animals. And from where is it derived that one may effect substitution from unblemished animals for animals with blemishes, and from animals with blemishes for unblemished animals?

As it is stated

(Leviticus 27):

“He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good animal for a bad one, or a bad one for a good one.” “Good” means unblemished animals, and “bad” means animals with blemishes.

And we expound: “good”—an unblemished non-sacred animal—does not designate it “for a bad one,” an animal with a blemish that is consecrated. “And if he shall substitute an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred.” From this we learn that an animal with a blemish that is consecrated effects substitution for an unblemished non-sacred animal. And from what is stated, “or a bad one for a good one,” we expound that one may not substitute a “bad” animal, namely, an animal with a blemish that is non-sacred, for a “good” one, an unblemished consecrated animal. “And if he shall substitute an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred.” From this we learn that an unblemished consecrated animal effects substitution for an animal with a blemish that is non-sacred.

The Mishna explains that what we derived from “a good animal for a bad one,” namely, that a “bad” consecrated animal effects substitution, does not apply to all consecrated animals with blemishes, but rather:

And what is “a good animal for a bad one,”

that is, which “bad” animal effects substitution?

Animals with blemishes

that are consecrated

whose consecration preceded

their consecration

their blemish,

meaning that when they were consecrated they were unblemished and only afterward developed a blemish. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they do not effect substitution. The Gemara will explain the derivation from the verse.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived,

from where are all the substitutions listed by the Mishna derived?

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah [ibid.]: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good animal for a bad one or a bad one for a good one. And if he shall substitute an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred.” And from what is stated

“an animal for an animal,”

from here

we learn

that one may effect substitution from sheep for cattle and from cattle for sheep; from lambs for goats and from goats for lambs; from males for females and from females for males; from animals with blemishes for unblemished animals and from unblemished animals for animals with blemishes.

One might have thought that even when a permanent blemish preceded

their consecration

one may effect substitution upon them?

The Torah teaches: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good animal for a bad one or a bad one for a good one.” And what is a good animal for a bad one? Animals with blemishes whose consecration preceded their blemish, and not

those whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration.

The Gemara clarifies:

What is the derivation,

what is the teaching? That is, how is this derived from the verse?

Abaye said: Let us write,

the Torah could have written

“He shall not substitute it, a good animal for a bad one,

or a bad one for it,”

which would have implied: “He shall not substitute it,” and the prohibited substitution is a good non-sacred animal for a bad consecrated animal; or, a bad non-sacred animal may not be substituted “for it,” for any consecrated animal, whether good or bad [and below it will be explained how a good non-sacred animal for a good consecrated animal would have been derived]—

If so, the fact that the Torah wrote

“for a good one” at the end,

the second one,

why do I need it? Learn from this: “good from the outset,”

meaning that only if the animal was unblemished at the time it was consecrated and subsequently developed a blemish

does it effect substitution.

But

an animal bad from the outset does not effect substitution.

Rava said: Both instances of “good”

the first and the second

are superfluous,

and are superfluous for purposes of exposition.

How so?

If so,

if the Torah indeed intended “a good animal for a bad one” and “a bad one for a good one,”

let the verse say,

the Torah could have written

“He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, for a bad one or a bad one for it,”

since “it for a bad one” would have implied “a good animal for a bad one”—that is, “it,” the consecrated animal, for a bad non-sacred animal. And “or a bad one for it” would have implied a bad non-sacred animal for a good consecrated animal. If so,

why do I need both instances of “good”?

To tell you:

One “good,”

the first superfluous one, teaches us that

even a good animal for a good animal

also—

he is liable to lashes,

he is liable to lashes even when he substitutes a good animal for a good animal.

And the other,

the second “good,” teaches us:

An animal good from the outset effects substitution,

whereas

an animal bad from the outset does not effect substitution.

The Gemara discusses:

But Abaye said:

No exposition is needed to derive “a good animal for a good one,” because

it is a kal va-chomer: Just as a good

non-sacred animal

for a bad one

of consecrated animals,

which improves it,

raising the status of the consecrated animal,

he is liable to lashes.

When he substitutes

a good animal for a good animal, since they are equivalent,

since both are equal and both are good—should he not

certainly be liable to lashes?!

And Rava,

responding to Abaye’s words, says: Indeed, one may derive a prohibition or a halakha by means of a kal va-chomer, but the punishment of lashes may not be derived in this way, because

one may not impose a punishment on the basis of an a fortiori inference.

Therefore, a special exposition is required for the punishment of lashes for substituting a good animal for a good animal.

And Abaye could say to you: This

is not a punishment derived from an a fortiori inference;

it is not derived by means of a kal va-chomer,

but is merely a clarification of the matter.

It is a simple proof that just as one is liable to lashes when he substitutes a bad consecrated animal for a good non-sacred animal, so too, when he substitutes a good animal for a good animal, he is liable, because

is a good animal inferior to a bad one?

That is, is a good consecrated animal inferior to a bad consecrated animal, so that just as one who substitutes a bad consecrated animal is liable to lashes, the same applies when he substitutes a good consecrated animal? For the Torah’s fundamental concern is that one not substitute any consecrated animal.

The following baraita explains the difference between “exchange” and “substitution.”

The Sages taught:

Concerning what the Torah says,

“He shall not exchange it,”

that means

with that of another:

He exchanges his animal for another person’s animal, as will be explained. This is the meaning of “exchange,” namely, that two people exchange objects between themselves. And concerning what the Torah says,

“nor substitute it,”

that means

with his own:

He substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, and both belong to him.

The Gemara asks: Why did the Torah write both expressions?

Let it write

it would have sufficed for the Torah to write

“He shall not exchange it,” and it would not need

to write

“nor substitute it,”

for why would we think that exchanging one’s own animal is not prohibited, whereas exchanging another’s animal is?

The Gemara answers:

If it had written this,

if the Torah had written only “He shall not exchange it,”

one might have thought

that only when he exchanges with another’s animal and says

“Let this leave,”

meaning, “Let my consecrated animal leave its sanctity,”

“and let this enter,”

meaning, “Let my fellow’s animal enter as its replacement as a sacrifice,” while he intends to give him his animal—

is he liable to lashes

because, according to his mistaken understanding, he intended to remove consecrated property into the non-sacred realm—

But

when he performs temura,

he consecrates both of them ,

and he does not intend to render the consecrated animal non-sacred—

say

that one might have thought to say that

he is not flogged—

It teaches us that the Torah teaches us, through the prohibition “He shall not exchange,” that even in this case he has transgressed the prohibition and is flogged .

that the Torah informs us, “He shall not substitute,” that even in this manner he transgressed the prohibition and receives lashes.

The Gemara clarifies:

This case involving another’s property—

which we derive from “He shall not exchange it,”

what are the circumstances—

how is this speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking of one who exchanges

his own consecrated animal—

belonging to him—

and

the

non-sacred

animal is

someone else’s—

belonging to another person, this cannot be said, because

is he able to consecrate—

can he consecrate another person’s animal? The Merciful One has stated:

“When a man consecrates his house as holy to the Lord,”

and we derive:

“Just as his house is in his possession, so too everything

that he consecrates—he can consecrate it only when it is

in his possession —

Rather—

if it is speaking of

another person’s consecrated animal—

belonging to someone else—

and

he exchanges that animal for

his non-sacred animal—

belonging to him—this too cannot be said, because

is he able to effect designation—

can he effect such a designation?!

And it was taught ,

as we learned in a beraita:

A person cannot effect designation with something that is not his.

This is difficult: what case is being discussed?

And we conclude:

Actually,

it is indeed speaking of

another person’s consecrated animal and his own non-sacred animal .

And it is speaking

of a case where the owner of the consecrated animal said

that he authorized anyone to perform temura with his animal, and explicitly said:

“Anyone who wishes to perform temura with my animal may come and perform temura.”

In this manner, temura takes effect upon it , and this is the temura prohibited by the Torah when it states, “He shall not exchange it” .

Mishna:

One may perform temura,

a

single

non-sacred sacrificial animal

for two

consecrated animals, for if he said concerning a non-sacred animal, “This is in place of those,” his temura takes effect.

And

one may likewise perform temura of two non-sacred animals

for one

consecrated animal, and likewise

one for one hundred, and one hundred for one,

the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: One may perform temura only one for one,

because

it is stated [in Leviticus 27]:

“

And it shall be, he and its substitute shall be holy.” “He” signifies “the particular one,” which is only one. Therefore, one may perform temura only with one sacrificial animal.

“It” means “the particular one,” namely, only one. Therefore, substitution may be performed only with respect to a single sacrifice.

And from where do we know that one may perform temura only with one non-sacred animal and not more? It is stated, “And its substitute,” and we expound: its substitute is analogous to it.

Just as “he,”

the sacrificial animal,

is particular,

so too its substitute

is particular.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words

—from where are these matters derived?

The Gemara cites a beraita in which the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages is explained.

As the Sages taught:

The Torah states [there], “And if he shall indeed perform temura,

an animal for an animal”;

from here

we learn

that one may perform temura of one for two, and of two for one; one for one hundred, and one hundred for one.

As will be explained, “animal” can be interpreted as “animals.”

Rabbi Shimon says: One may perform temura only one for one,

because

it is stated, “an animal for an animal,”

and we expound:

not an animal for animals, and not animals for an animal.

In his view, “animal” signifies only one.

They said to him—

the Sages said to Rabbi Shimon:

We find

in biblical usage that many

animals are called “animal,”

as a collective term for the animal species, as

it is stated [Jonah 4]:

“And much cattle.”

“And many animals.”

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Shimon

responds that this is no proof! Indeed, many animals

are called “much cattle,”

but

“animal” by itself

in the singular

is not called

“animal”; many animals are not referred to as “an animal.” The Gemara asks:

And

if

the reason for Rabbi Shimon

is “animal,” because it signifies the singular,

but the reason for Rabbi Shimon is

that it is stated

“he,”

and he expounds:

Just as he is particular, so too his substitute

is particular, as explained in our Mishna.

And we answer [first version]:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may perform temura

one for one

and then perform temura again

with the same sacrificial animal with which temura had already been performed once. That is, one may not perform temura of two animals for one simultaneously, but one may perform temura several times with regard to the same sacrificial animal.

What is the reason?

The first sanctity

of the sacrificial animal with which the temura was performed—

where did it go?

If temura was performed with it once, did its sanctity disappear, making it impossible to perform temura with it again?!

That is, although Rabbi Shimon derives from “he and its substitute” that one may perform temura only one for one, as explained in the Mishna, that exposition by itself could lead one to say that one may neither perform temura nor perform it again, because the temura too must be a “particular” act, performed only once. Therefore, an additional exposition, “an animal for an animal,” was necessary to teach that one may perform temura and then perform it again, since each time he performs temura with no more than one animal, and it is properly called “an animal for an animal.”

Alternatively: We ask:

“Is Rabbi Shimon’s reason ‘animal’?! But Rabbi Shimon’s reason is ‘he’: Just as he is particular, so too his substitute is particular?”

And we answer:

Initially,

at first,

Rabbi Shimon said to them from “He and its substitute shall be,”

as the Mishna states.

But when he saw

that this was appropriate,

that the Sages expounded “an animal for an animal,” he said to them—

he responded to them:

From there,

from that verse which you cite as proof of your position,

we can also derive the reason for my position—

I too can derive my position, as explained in the beraita, because it does not say “animals,” but “animal.”

The Gemara cites the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish according to Rabbi Shimon as to whether one may perform temura and then perform it again. According to the second version, this is a new dispute and is unrelated to the resolution of the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita. According to the first version, it continues what was stated above [and the text must read: “The essential discussion”].

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may perform temura and then perform it again. What is the reason? The first sanctity

of the initial consecration

where did it go?!

As explained.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Just as

according to Rabbi Shimon

one may not perform temura of two animals for one, so too one may not perform temura and then perform it again.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yohanan,

as we learned in a beraita in accordance with his words;

a beraita was taught

and we learned in another beraita

in accordance with the view of Reish Lakish.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yohanan: Just as one may not perform temura of two animals for one,

so too one may not perform temura and then perform it again.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the view of Reish Lakish: One might have thought that just as Rabbi Shimon said that one may not perform temura of two animals for one, so too one may not perform temura and then perform it again. The verse states, “And he and its substitute shall be,”

even one hundred times.

The discussion of two bodies and two sanctities.

The Gemara presents several uncertainties raised by Rabbi Avin according to Rabbi Shimon [in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan], who holds that with regard to a sacrificial animal with which temura was performed once, one may not perform temura with it again.

The uncertainty concerns a case in which the sanctity was “transferred” to another animal, and one performed temura with the other animal: does its temura take effect? The aspects of the uncertainty will be explained in the Gemara.

There are several forms of “transferring sanctity”: A. “Two bodies and one sanctity.” For example, one designated a guilt-offering with which to achieve atonement and performed temura with it. One may not perform temura with that animal again. Rather, it developed a blemish, and he transferred its sanctity to another animal. It follows that the other animal is now a guilt-offering and has that same sanctity of a guilt-offering, but it is a different body.

B. “Two sanctities and one body.” For example, one designated a guilt-offering with which to achieve atonement and performed temura with it; with regard to that animal, as it is, one may not perform temura again. Rather, it was lost, and he achieved atonement with another guilt-offering that he took from his herd and consecrated as a guilt-offering, and he sacrificed it; afterward, the first animal was found. Its status after being found is that it is “redirected to an olah,” meaning that its sanctity was detached from the sanctity of a guilt-offering and it is now an olah, as is the law with regard to a guilt-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another offering. It follows that this animal itself no longer possesses the earlier sanctity of a guilt-offering [since that sanctity has already been “emptied” with regard to the law of temura, after temura had already been performed with it], and it possesses a different sanctity. 3. “Two bodies and two sanctities.” For example, he designated an asham to attain atonement through it, and effected temura with it. It then developed a blemish, and he transferred its sanctity to another animal, which was also an asham like it. Now that second asham was lost, and he attained atonement through another one. Afterwards, it was found and reassigned as a burnt offering. It follows that this second offering, which is now a burnt offering, is a different body from the first asham that developed a blemish [with which one does not effect temura, since temura had already been effected with it], and it also has a different sanctity, since the sanctity of an asham was reassigned from it to the sanctity of a burnt offering.

The Gemara discusses all these possibilities. There are two versions of the Gemara on this matter, the version of the Babylonian Talmud and the version of the Jerusalem Talmud: What exactly was Rabbi Avin’s question?

Rabbi Avin asked: According to the one who says, “One does not effect temura and then effect temura again,”

what is the law if

he designated an asham to attain atonement through it, and effected temura with it?

With regard to that animal, he may not effect temura again.