Temurah 9b — the Talmud in English

And it became blemished,

the first one, in which a blemish occurred,

and he redeemed it onto another offering,

and that other [the second] was lost,

and he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering [the third], and that guilt-offering [the second], onto which it had been redeemed from the first guilt-offering, was found.

And

since it was found after he had achieved atonement through another one, it is

detached for a burnt-offering -

And concerning that burnt-offering, Rabbi Avin raises the question:

what is the law as to transferring sanctity onto it?

The sides of the uncertainty are: Do we say that, since its sanctity came by virtue of the first guilt-offering, onto which one may not transfer sanctity, since sanctity had already been transferred onto it, so too one may not transfer sanctity onto the burnt-offering? Or perhaps, since it is a different “entity” [a different animal] and also a different “sanctity” [it is not a guilt-offering but a burnt-offering], therefore one may transfer sanctity onto it.

And in this problem there are two matters in which the sanctity was “transferred,” and therefore the Gemara discusses it:

Abaye said: What is he asking?

If it is a case of “two entities and one sanctity,”

and the uncertainty is because, since it is a different entity, there is reason to say that one may transfer sanctity onto it; or perhaps, since it has one sanctity together with the first one, therefore one does not effect a substitution, it is difficult:

he should have asked it;

Rabbi Avin could have asked

without [the animal] having achieved atonement

through another one. And this is how he should have asked it: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and transferred sanctity onto it, and the first one became blemished and he redeemed it onto another one—and the sides of the uncertainty are: Can he transfer sanctity onto this other one, since it is a different entity, or perhaps, since its power came from the first one, onto which sanctity had already been transferred, and it has one sanctity and is a guilt-offering like it, he cannot transfer sanctity onto it. And why did Rabbi Avin need to formulate his problem in a manner in which it was also lost in the meantime, he achieved atonement through another one, and its sanctity was transferred from a guilt-offering to a burnt-offering?

If,

and if his problem is with regard to

“two sanctities and one entity,”

and he asks: Since it is a different sanctity, there is reason to say that one may transfer sanctity onto it; or perhaps, since it is one entity, it does not effect a substitution -

it is difficult:

he should have asked it,

Rabbi Avin could have asked

without it becoming blemished

and without redeeming it. And this is how he should have asked it: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and transferred sanctity onto it, and the first one was lost and he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering, and afterward the first one was found and was detached for a burnt-offering; now it is one entity [and sanctity had already been transferred onto it], except that it was detached for a different sanctity -

And the sides of the uncertainty are: Can he transfer sanctity onto it, since it is a different sanctity, or perhaps, since it is one entity and he had already transferred sanctity onto it, he cannot return and transfer sanctity onto it. And why did Rabbi Avin need to formulate his problem in a manner in which it also became blemished and he redeemed it?

And now Abaye asks: Which of the two problems is he asking?

And the Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Avin is asking one from within one,

one out of one,

he is asking.

That is, this is not one uncertainty, but rather two uncertainties, “one from within the other.” At first he asked about “two entities and one sanctity,” and it was not resolved for him,

and

afterward he asked:

if you should say,

and prove from a Mishna, a beraita, or reasoning, that

two entities and one sanctity do not

transfer sanctity onto it,

because with regard to that sanctity it was already stated

in it once,

it had already had sanctity transferred onto it once with this sanctity -

If we remain with this conclusion, there is still a question to ask:

Two entities and two sanctities—what is the law?

Is there reason to say that, since the sanctity too was transferred to another one, it effects a substitution? Or perhaps, since in the end its sanctity came by virtue of the first one, onto which sanctity had already been transferred, he does not return and transfer sanctity onto it.

And we conclude:

It stands.

The uncertainties were not resolved!

Another formulation,

and this is the formulation of the Jerusalem Talmud. According to this formulation, Rabbi Avin did not ask about “two entities and two sanctities,” but rather:

Rabbi Avin asked

two separate uncertainties, and both of them are

according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says: One does not transfer sanctity and then transfer sanctity again.

The first uncertainty is:

He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and transferred sanctity onto it, and it became blemished,

a blemish occurred in it,

and he redeemed it onto another one,

and he asks:

What is the law as to returning and transferring sanctity

onto that other one, which has one sanctity in a different entity? And the sides of the uncertainty are as explained above.

Alternatively,

the second uncertainty is when no blemish occurred in it, but it was lost, and

he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering,

and the first one was found,

and this one was detached

the first one from a guilt-offering

for a burnt-offering,

and he asks:

What is the law as to returning and transferring sanctity

onto that first one, which is a different sanctity in the same entity? And the sides of the uncertainty are as explained above.

Abaye said: The matter he is asking,

what is the essence of his problem?

If,

if the essence of his problem is the second one,

a different sanctity in the same entity,

it is difficult:

he need not ask,

he need not ask his first problem:

it became blemished and he redeemed it onto

another one -

If, and if the essence of his problem is the first one,

another animal.”

a different entity

with the same sanctity,

it is difficult:

he need not ask,

he need not ask his second problem:

he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering.

That is, these are two separate uncertainties, and for each of them there is a different rationale for saying that now he may transfer sanctity onto it. Why did he include them in one problem? And we answer: Indeed, they are two uncertainties, and they were not asked together. Rather, Rabbi Avin is asking one from within one.

“He achieved atonement through another guilt offering.”

That is, at first he asked: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and transferred sanctity onto it, and

it became blemished and he redeemed it onto another one—

what is the law as to returning and transferring sanctity

onto that same other guilt-offering? And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say: It is only with regard to the first guilt-offering that he does not return and transfer sanctity

onto it, since he had already transferred sanctity onto it,

but

when it was redeemed and the sanctity was transferred

to a different entity,

even though it remains [that it stands]

with the same

sanctity,

and both are guilt-offerings,

he returns and transfers sanctity. Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

Anything

that is

with the same sanctity—

he does not return and transfer sanctity.

This was his first problem. And afterward he asked:

And if you should say,

if we resolve that

the law is: a different entity,

even though it is a different entity, nevertheless,

since it remains with the same sanctity,

therefore

he does not return and transfer sanctity -

Rather,

that is, if it is indeed reasonable to say that, since the second offering remains with the sanctity of the first one, he does not return and transfer sanctity onto the second one, there is still a question to ask concerning his second problem: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it did not become blemished but was lost, and

he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering, and this one was detached

the

first one for a burnt-offering—

what is the law as to returning and transferring sanctity onto it?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say: When Rabbi Yohanan says that one does not transfer sanctity and then transfer sanctity again,

in what matter did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

These words

refer to

the same entity with the same sanctity ,

but the same entity with a different sanctity,

since the sanctity changed [and in the first uncertainty it appeared reasonable to us to say that if the sanctity remained, he does not return and transfer sanctity; it follows that the law of substitution depends upon the sanctity, and if the sanctity changed]

he returns and transfers sanctity. Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

even though the sanctity

is different,

nevertheless,

since it is the same entity—

he does not return and transfer sanctity.

And according to this formulation, he did not ask about “two entities and two sanctities” [and resolved for himself that he returns and transfers sanctity?], but rather at first he asked about “two entities and one sanctity,” and since it seemed reasonable to him that he does not return and transfer sanctity, he again asked about “one entity and two sanctities.” And we conclude: It stands, and the uncertainties were not resolved! The Gemara brings a similar discussion, Rabbi Avin’s problem and Abaye’s question, in two formulations, Babylonian and Jerusalem, concerning adding a “fifth.” The Torah said [Leviticus 27]: “And if it is any impure animal [the verse is speaking of a blemished animal, which is impure for sacrifice, and the verse teaches you that unblemished consecrated animals do not leave the domain of the sacred for the non-sacred through redemption unless they became blemished. Rashi] that they do not offer as an offering to the Lord—and he shall place the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether good or bad; according to the valuation of the priest, so shall it be. And if he shall surely redeem it—then he shall add its fifth to your valuation.” The Torah taught you that one who redeems a blemished animal adds a fifth to the value that the priest valued it at, and he shall purchase an offering with the money of the first one, with the addition of a fifth. And it is not specifically one who redeems an animal that was consecrated as an offering and in which a blemish occurred; rather, anyone who redeems a consecrated item, even an item consecrated for maintenance of the Temple, adds a fifth. As it is stated there in the Torah: “And when a man consecrates his house as sacred to the Lord, the priest shall value it, whether good or bad; as the priest values it, so shall it stand. And if the one who consecrated it shall redeem his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his.” In what matter is this stated? With regard to the “first consecration,” that is, with regard to this animal that was consecrated and in which a blemish occurred; but with regard to the “second consecration,” he does not add a fifth. “ What is the “second consecration”?” a. One who consecrates a blemished animal for maintenance of the Temple, if he comes to redeem it and remove it to the non-sacred, adds a fifth, since it is “the first consecration.” But if he redeems it onto another blemished animal, it is “the second consecration,” and he does not add a fifth to its value.

even though the sanctity

is different,

nevertheless,

since it is the same physical animal—

one may not perform substitution again.

According to this version, he did not ask about “two physical animals and two sanctities” [and resolve that one may perform substitution again ?]. Rather, at first he asked about “two physical animals and one sanctity,” and since it seemed reasonable to him that one may not perform substitution again, he then asked about “one physical animal and two sanctities.”

And we conclude:

The question remains without a resolution,

and the questions were not resolved!

The Gemara presents a similar discussion—the question of Rabbi Avin and Abaye’s difficulty—in two versions, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem version, concerning the addition of a “fifth.”

The Torah says [Leviticus 27]: “And if any impure animal”—the verse speaks of an animal with a blemish, which is impure with regard to being offered, and the verse teaches you that unblemished consecrated animals do not leave the realm of consecration through redemption unless they have developed a blemish.

“Which may not be offered as an offering to the Lord, he shall present the animal before the priest. The priest shall assess it, whether good or bad; according to the assessment of the priest, so shall it be. And if he redeems it, he shall add one-fifth of its assessment.” The Torah teaches you that one who redeems an animal with a blemish adds a fifth to the value assessed for it by the priest, and with the original money plus the additional fifth he acquires an offering.

This applies not only to one who redeems an animal that was consecrated as an offering and developed a blemish. Rather, anyone who redeems a consecrated item, even an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, adds a fifth. As it is stated there in the Torah: “And if a man consecrates his house as a sacred thing to the Lord, the priest shall assess it, whether good or bad; as the priest assesses it, so shall it stand. And if the one who consecrated it redeems his house, he shall add one-fifth of the money of your assessment to it, and it shall be his.”

b. He consecrated an animal as an offering and no blemish occurred in it, but it was transferred onto another one—this other one is “the second consecration,” and if it became blemished, he does not add a fifth to its value.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The first consecration adds a fifth, but the second consecration does not add a fifth.

Rav Pappa said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse says [there]: “And if the one who consecrated it shall redeem his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it.” And we expound: The one who consecrates adds a fifth, but not the one who substitutes. Rabbi Avin asked: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it became blemished and he redeemed it onto another one, and since it is the first consecration, he added a fifth to it, and it was lost and he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering, and this second guilt-offering, onto which the first had been redeemed, was found, and automatically this one was detached for a burnt-offering.

And now this one too became blemished and he came to redeem it—

what is the law as to adding a fifth to it?

And the sides of the uncertainty will be explained below.

[there]:

“And if the one who consecrated it redeems his house, he shall add one-fifth

of the money of your assessment to it.” And we derive:

The one who consecrates

Abaye said: What is he asking

Rabbi Avin? That is, Abaye thought that it was all one problem, and concerning this he asked what the rationales of the uncertainty were, and he answered that they were two separate uncertainties.

If he is asking about “two entities and one sanctity,”

for example: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it became blemished,

and he redeemed it and added a fifth to it, since it is the first consecration, and with this money he purchased another offering as a guilt-offering, and that second one also became blemished -

he added a fifth for it,

And the sides of the uncertainty are: The reason to say that he adds a fifth is that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said only up to this point that, with regard to the second consecration, he does not add a fifth, but this is, for example, when one substitutes a “blemished animal” for maintenance of the Temple in the first consecration and redeems it onto another blemished animal for maintenance of the Temple; and since nothing new was introduced into it, no new sanctity, therefore he does not add a fifth to it. This is not so when one substitutes an unblemished animal for a blemished animal that is unfit for the altar, and now the unblemished animal is fit for the altar [that is, at the time of the substitution, before a blemish too occurred in it]; this is a new sanctity, and it can again be called “the first consecration,”

therefore, if it became blemished, he adds a fifth to it.

and this second guilt offering, onto which the first had been transferred, was found,

and

consequently

And the reason to say that he does not add a fifth to it is that, since it has one sanctity with the preceding one, onto which it was redeemed, and onto which they had already added a fifth,

but it is a different entity—it is “the second consecration.” Therefore, if it became blemished, he does not add a fifth to it .

Therefore Abaye asks: He should have asked it, he could have asked without achieving atonement?

The sides of the uncertainty will be explained below.

And Abaye continues:

If he is asking about “two sanctities and one entity,”

for example: He designated a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it did not become blemished and he did not redeem it, but it was lost; he designated another one and achieved atonement through it, and the first one was found and detached for a burnt-offering, and that burnt-offering developed a blemish and he came to redeem it. And now he asks: Does he add a fifth to it?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: The reason to say that he does not add a fifth is that it is “the second consecration,” for he had already achieved atonement through another one, and it is “subordinate” to that guilt-offering through which he achieved atonement. Therefore, he does not add a fifth - And the reason to say that he adds a fifth is that, since now it is a different sanctity—it is a burnt-offering, whereas the preceding one was a guilt-offering—and it is not subordinate to it, in relation to it it is “the first consecration.” Therefore, he adds a fifth. Therefore Abaye asks: He should have asked it without its becoming blemished!

And Abaye asks, as explained: What is his primary problem, and he should have asked only that one, with the second one understood from it?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Avin is asking one from within one.

There are two separate problems. At first he asked about “two entities and one sanctity,” and the sides of the uncertainty are as explained above. And afterward he asks:

If you should say

that

“two entities and one sanctity” does not

add a fifth,

because with that sanctity a fifth was added to it once,

a fifth had already been added to it at the first redemption -

If we remain with this conclusion, there is still a question to ask:

“Two entities and two sanctities”—

what is the law, does he add a fifth? And the sides of the uncertainty are: The reason to say that he adds a fifth is that, since it is both a different entity and a different sanctity, it is an entirely new sanctity, onto which a fifth has not yet been added, and it is no longer called “the second consecration,” but rather “the first consecration,” therefore he adds a fifth to it. Therefore, he adds a fifth to it.

As explained, Abaye asks what the main question is, since he could have asked only that question and the second one would have been understood from it.

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin was asking one question on the basis of another.

They are two separate questions. At first he asked about “two physical animals and one sanctity,” and the sides of the uncertainty are as explained above. Then he asked:

If you should conclude

that

in the case of “two physical animals and one sanctity,” one does not

add a fifth,

because with regard to that sanctity a fifth had already been added once,

a fifth had already been added for it at the first transfer—

If we maintain this conclusion, one must still ask:

“Two physical animals and two sanctities”—

what is the law,

does he add a fifth?

The reason to say that he adds a fifth is that, since it is both a different physical animal and has a different sanctity, it is an entirely new sanctity, for which no fifth has yet been added, and it is no longer called “the second consecration,” but rather “the first consecration” . Therefore, he adds a fifth for it.

And the side for saying that he does not add a fifth is this: since, in the end, it comes from the “power” of the first, it is “second consecrated property.” Therefore, he does not add a fifth upon it.

And all this Rabbi Avin raises as a question, while he asked the second question by way of “if you should say.”

And we conclude:

teyku,

the questions have not been resolved!

The Gemara brings another lishna, and it is the wording of the Jerusalem Talmud. It is explained as above with regard to substitution, that Rabbi Avin indeed raised two separate questions. The first: concerning “one sanctity and two bodies,” and the second: concerning “one body and two sanctities.” And Abaye objects: What is the essence of his question, and why did he not raise one of them, with the second being understood from it?

Another version: Rabbi Avin raised a question: He set aside a guilt-offering in order to gain atonement through it, and it developed a blemish, and he redeemed it upon another and added a fifth

and the second one also developed a blemish,

what is the law that he should again add a fifth?

And this is the first question, concerning “two bodies and one sanctity.” The sides of the uncertainty are explained above and will be explained below.

Alternatively,

and the second question is concerning “one body and two sanctities”: He set aside a guilt-offering in order to gain atonement through it [and it did not develop a blemish and he did not redeem it], and it was lost, and he

gained atonement through another guilt-offering,

and it was found,

and this one was detached

the first one

to a burnt-offering,

and it developed a blemish, and he came to redeem it,

what is the law that he should add a fifth upon it?

And the sides of the uncertainty will be explained below.

Abaye said: This is what he raises as a question,

which of them is the essence of his question?

If it is “another sanctity in the same body” that he raises as a question,

if the essence of Rabbi Avin’s question is his second question, it is difficult:

he should not raise “it developed a blemish,”

that is, his first question—

if it is “one body with the same sanctity,”

and if he raises his first question, it is difficult:

he should not

raise “and he gained atonement,”

that is, his second question?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Avin,

indeed raises all these questions, and

one from within another—

he raises them as a question,

and these questions are in the manner of “if you should say.” That is to say, even if we prove one question from a Mishna, a beraita, or a rationale, it is still necessary to raise the other question.

His first question is: He set aside a guilt-offering in order to gain atonement through it, and

it developed a blemish and he redeemed it upon another,

and paid a fifth upon it, and now that other one also developed a blemish,

what is the law that he should add a fifth upon it?

If we say,

for it may be said, as explained above, that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said that one does not add a fifth upon “second consecrated property” only

in the first guilt-offering,

that is, in consecrated property with a blemish consecrated for the Temple maintenance fund, which he redeemed upon another, and now he comes to redeem the second one. And since nothing new occurred in the second one,

it is that he does not add a fifth. But with another body, even though it remains in the same sanctity,

and he already paid a fifth upon it, nevertheless, since in the other body a new sanctity occurred in it—for the first was fit only for its monetary value, whereas this one was fit for the altar—therefore there is a side for saying that indeed he

adds

upon it

a fifth—