Temurah 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And it developed a blemish

the first one, in which a blemish developed,

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 the first guilt-offering had been redeemed, was found.

And

And

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

designated for an olah—

And concerning that olah offering, Rabbi Avin raises a question:

May one perform temura with it?

The two sides of the question are: Do we say that, since its sanctity derives from the first guilt-offering, with which one may not perform temura, because temura had already been performed with it, one may likewise not perform temura with the olah? Or perhaps, since it is a different “body” [another animal] and also a different “sanctity” [it is not a guilt-offering but an olah], one may therefore perform temura with it?

In this question there are two aspects in which the sanctity was “transferred,” and therefore the Gemara discusses it:

Abaye said: What is he asking?

If it is “two bodies and one sanctity,”

the question being that because it is a different body there is reason to say that one may perform temura with it, or perhaps, since it has the same sanctity as the first one, one may not perform temura with it, this is difficult:

Let Rabbi Avin ask

he could have asked

without [the animal] having provided atonement

through another one. He should instead have asked as follows: If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and performed temura with it, and the first developed a blemish and he redeemed it onto another one—then the sides of the question would be: May one perform temura with this other one, since it is a different body, or perhaps, since its force derives from the first, with which temura had already been performed, and it has one sanctity with it and is likewise a guilt-offering, he may not perform temura with it. Why did Rabbi Avin formulate his question in a manner that also involved the animal’s being lost and his meanwhile achieving atonement through another one, with its sanctity being transferred from a guilt-offering to an olah?

If

and if his question concerns

“two sanctities and one body,”

and he asks whether, because it has a different sanctity, there is reason to say that one may perform temura with it, or perhaps, since it is one body, one may not perform temura with it—

this too is difficult:

Let him ask

he could have asked

without [the first animal] having developed a blemish

and without redeeming it. He should instead have asked as follows: If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and performed temura with it, and the first was lost and he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering, and afterward the first was found and designated for an olah, so that now it is one body [and temura had already been performed with it], except that it had been transferred to a different sanctity—

the sides of the question would be: May one perform temura with it, since it has a different sanctity, or perhaps, since it is one body and temura had already been performed with it, may one not perform temura with it again? Why did Rabbi Avin formulate his question in a manner that also involved its developing a blemish and his redeeming it?

Now Abaye asks: Which of the two questions did he intend to ask?

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Avin was asking one question through another

one from within another;

he was asking

meaning, there was not one question here, but two questions, “one through the other.” Initially he was asking about “two bodies and one sanctity,” and the matter was not resolved for him,

and

afterward he asked:

If you should say

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

with two bodies and one sanctity one may not perform temura

with it,

because with regard to that sanctity it was already stated

with it once

it had already undergone temura with this sanctity once—

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

“Two bodies and two sanctities—what is the law?”

Is there reason to say that, since the sanctity too was exchanged for another one, one may perform temura with it? Or perhaps, since in the end its sanctity derives from the first, with which temura had already been performed, one may not perform temura with it again?

And we conclude:

Teiku.

The questions remain unresolved!

Another version,

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

Rabbi Avin asked

two separate questions, and both were

according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: One may not perform temura and then perform temura again.

The first question is:

If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and performed temura with it, and it developed a blemish,

a blemish developed in it,

and he redeemed it onto another one,

and he asks:

May he perform temura again

with that other one, which has one sanctity in a different body? The sides of the question are as explained above.

Alternatively,

the second question is when it did not develop a blemish, but was lost, and

he achieved atonement through another guilt-offering,

and the first was found,

and this one was designated

the first one from a guilt-offering

as an olah,

and he asks:

May he perform temura again

with that first one, which has a different sanctity in the same body? The sides of the question are as explained above.

Abaye said: What

was he asking,

what was the essence of his question?

If

the essence of his question was the second one,

a different sanctity in the same body,

this is difficult:

Let him not ask

he need not ask his first question:

It developed a blemish and he redeemed it onto

another one—

If,

and if the essence of his question was the first one,

a different body

with the same sanctity,

this is difficult:

Let him not ask,

he need not ask his second question:

He achieved atonement through another guilt-offering.

In other words, these are two separate questions, and in each one there is a different rationale for saying that one may now perform temura with it. Why did he include them in a single question?

And we answer: Indeed, they are two questions, and they were not asked together. Rather,

Rabbi Avin was asking one question through another.

Initially he asked: If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it and performed temura with it, and

it developed a blemish and he redeemed it onto another one—

may he perform temura again

with that other guilt-offering? The sides of the question are:

Do we say that it is only with regard to the first guilt-offering that he may not perform temura again

with it, since he had already performed temura with it,

but

when it was redeemed and the sanctity was transferred

to a different body,

even though it remains [it stands]

standing

with the same

sanctity,

and both are guilt-offerings,

he may perform temura again. Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

Whenever

it is

with the same sanctity—

the law is: a different entity,

he may not perform temura again.

That was his first question. Then he asked:

If you should say,

if we resolve that

the law is [that it is] a different body,

even though it is a different body, nevertheless

since it remains with the same sanctity,

therefore

he may not perform temura again—

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

Rather,

that is, if it is indeed reasonable to say that since the second offering remains with the sanctity of the first, one may not perform temura with the second one again, there is still his second question to ask: If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it did not develop a blemish but was lost, and

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

the

first one as an olah—

may he perform temura with it again?

The sides of the question are:

Do we say: When one may not perform temura and then perform temura again,

in what case did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

These matters apply

these words apply, to

the same body with the same sanctity ;

but the same body with a different sanctity,

since the sanctity has changed [and in the first question it appeared reasonable to us to say that if the sanctity remained the same, he may not perform temura again, indicating that the law of temura depends on the sanctity; and if the sanctity changed,]

he may perform temura again. Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

even though the sanctity

is different,

nevertheless,

since it is the same body—

he may not perform temura again.

According to this version, he did not ask about “two bodies and two sanctities” [and resolved that he may perform temura again ?]. Rather, initially he asked about “two bodies and one sanctity,” and since it appeared reasonable to him that one may not perform temura again, he then asked about “one body and two sanctities.”

And we conclude:

Teiku,

and the questions remain unresolved!

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

The Torah states [Leviticus 27]: “And if it is any impure animal [the verse is speaking 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 sanctity through redemption unless they develop blemishes. Rashi] that they may not offer as an offering to the Lord, then he shall stand the animal before the koen. And the koen shall value it, whether good or bad; as the koen values it, so shall it be. And if he shall redeem it, then he shall add a fifth of its valuation to it.”

The Torah teaches you that one who redeems an animal with a blemish adds a fifth to the valuation assigned to it by the koen, and purchases an offering with the money from the first one, together with the additional fifth.

This applies not only to one who redeems an animal that had been consecrated as an offering and developed a blemish; rather, anyone who redeems a consecrated item—even an item consecrated for the Temple treasury—adds a fifth. As it is stated there in the Torah: “And when a man consecrates his house as a sacred item to the Lord, the koen shall value it, whether good or bad; as the koen values it, so shall it stand. And if the one who consecrated it shall redeem his house, then he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his.”

What are these matters referring to? To “the first consecration,” meaning this animal that was consecrated and developed a blemish; but with regard to “the second consecration,” he does not add a fifth.

“The second consecration”—what is it?

1. One who consecrates an animal with a blemish for the Temple treasury, if he comes to redeem it and bring it into the non-sacred domain, adds a fifth, since this is “the first consecration.” But if he redeemed it onto another animal with a blemish, this is “the second consecration,” and he does not add a fifth to its valuation.

2. If one consecrated an animal as an offering and it did not develop a blemish, but was exchanged for another one, the latter is “the second consecration,” and if it developed a blemish, he does not add a fifth to its valuation.

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

Rav Pappa said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse states

[there]:

“And if the one who consecrated it shall redeem his house, then he shall add a fifth

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

The one who consecrates

adds a fifth,

but not the one who substitutes.

Rabbi Avin raises a question: If one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it developed a blemish and he redeemed it

onto another one, and

since it is the first consecration,

he added a fifth to it,

but 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 designated for an olah.

Now it too developed a blemish, and he comes to redeem it—

may he add a fifth to it?

The sides of the question will be explained below.

Abaye said: What is he asking

Rabbi Avin? That is, Abaye thought that it was all one question, and he challenged the rationales underlying the question, then answered that they were two separate questions.

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

for example: one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it developed a blemish, and he redeemed it and added a fifth to it, since it was the first consecration, and with this money he purchased another offering as a guilt-offering, and that second one also developed a blemish— The sides of the question are: The reason to say that he adds a fifth is that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one does not add a fifth for the second consecration only in a case such as when one consecrates “an animal with a blemish” for the Temple treasury as the first consecration, and redeems it onto another animal with a blemish for the Temple treasury; since nothing new was created in it, no new sanctity, he does not add a fifth to it. This is not so when one consecrates an unblemished animal onto an animal with a blemish, which is unfit for the altar, and now the unblemished animal is fit for the altar [that is, at the time of the substitution, before it too developed a blemish]. This is a new sanctity, and it can again be called “the first consecration,” therefore, if it develops a blemish, he adds a fifth to it. The reason to say that he does not add a fifth is that, since it has one sanctity with the preceding animal, onto which it was redeemed, and for which a fifth had already been added, but it is a different body—it is “the second consecration.” Therefore, if it develops a blemish, he does not add a fifth to it .

Accordingly, Abaye asks:

Let him ask

he could have asked

without [the animal] having provided atonement?

Abaye continues:

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

for example: one set aside a guilt-offering to achieve atonement through it, and it did not develop a blemish and he did not redeem it, but it was lost, and he set aside another one and achieved atonement through it, and the first was found and designated for an olah, and that olah developed a blemish and he came to redeem it. Now he asks: Does he add a fifth to it?

The sides of the question are: The reason to say that he does not add a fifth is that it is “the second consecration,” since 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 does add a fifth is that, since it now has a different sanctity—it is an olah, whereas the preceding one was a guilt-offering—it is not subordinate to it, and relative to it this is “the first consecration.” Therefore, he adds a fifth.

Accordingly, Abaye asks:

Let him ask

without [the animal] having developed a blemish!

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 his principal question is, and says that he should have asked only that one, with the second being understood from it.

And we answer:

And Rabbi Avin was asking one question through another.

There are two separate questions. Initially he asked about “two bodies and one sanctity,” and the sides of the question are as explained above. Then he asked:

If you should say

that

with “two bodies and one sanctity” one does not

add a fifth,

because with regard to 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 bodies and two sanctities”—

what is the law,

does he add a fifth?

The sides of the question are: The reason to say that he adds a fifth is that, since it is both a different body and a different sanctity, it is an entirely new sanctity, for 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.

The reasoning for saying that he does not add a fifth is: Since, ultimately, it derives from the “power” of the first one, it is “second consecration.” Therefore, he does not add a fifth to it.

All this is what Rabbi Avin raises as a question, and he asks the second question by means of “if you should say.”

And we conclude:

Teiku,

the questions remain unresolved!

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

Alternatively: Rabbi Avin asks: If one designated a guilt-offering in order to achieve atonement through it, and it developed a blemish, and he redeemed it onto another animal and added a fifth

and the second one also developed a blemish,

what is the halakha as to whether he should again add a fifth?

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

Alternatively ,

the second question concerns “one body and two sanctities”: If one designated a guilt-offering in order to achieve atonement through it [and it did not develop a blemish and he did not redeem it], and it was lost, and he

achieved atonement through another guilt-offering,

and then it was found,

and this first one was transferred

from its status as a guilt-offering

to a burnt-offering,

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

what is the halakha as to whether he should add a fifth to it?

The two sides of the uncertainty will be explained below.

Abaye said: The matter he is asking about is the law,

which of them is the essence of his question?

If he is asking about “another sanctity in the same body,”

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

he should not have asked about “it developed a blemish,”

that is, his first question—

if he is asking about “one body with the same sanctity,”

and if he is asking his first question, this is difficult:

he should not

have asked about “and he achieved atonement,”

that is, his second question?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Avin,

indeed raises all these questions, and

one from within another—

he is asking them;

these questions follow the pattern of “if you should say.” That is, even if we establish one question from a Mishna, a beraita, or reasoning, it is still necessary to raise another question.

His first question is: If one designated a guilt-offering in order to achieve atonement through it, and

it developed a blemish and he redeemed it onto another,

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

what is the halakha as to whether he should add a fifth to it?

If we say,

for it may be said, as explained above, that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one does not add a fifth for “second consecration” only

in the first guilt-offering,

that is, in the consecrated animal with a blemish designated for Temple maintenance, which he redeemed onto another, and now he comes to redeem the second one. Since nothing new occurred with the second one,

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

and he has already paid a fifth for it, nevertheless, since a new sanctity arose in the other body—the first was fit only for its monetary value, whereas this one was fit for the altar—there is reason to say that he indeed

adds

to it a

fifth—