Temurah 2aתמורה ב׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Temurah 2a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
Temurah
2aב׳ א

מתני׳ הכל ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים לא שאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים

MISHNA: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, both men and women. That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect, and the non-sacred animal becomes consecrated, and the consecrated animal remains sacred. And the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the forty [sofeg et ha’arba’im] lashes.

גמ׳ הא גופא קשיא אמרת הכל ממירין לכתחילה והדר תני לא שאדם רשאי להמיר (אלא שאם המיר מומר) דיעבד

GEMARA: The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction in the mishna: This mishna itself is difficult: You say that everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated one, which indicates that substitution may be performed ab initio. And then you teach: That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means only that if one unlawfully substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect, indicating that it is effective only after the fact.

ותיסברא הכל ממירין לכתחילה אדקשיא לך ממתניתין תיקשי לך קרא דכתיב (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו

The Gemara responds: And can you understand the phrase: Everyone substitutes, as indicating that substitution may be performed ab initio? If so, before the mishna poses a difficulty for you, the verse should pose a difficulty for you, as it is written: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it” (Leviticus 27:10). The verse clearly states that it is prohibited to perform substitution.

אלא אמר רב יהודה הכי קתני הכל מתפיסין בתמורה אחד אנשים ואחד נשים לא שאדם רשאי להמיר שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים

Rather, Rav Yehuda says: This is what the mishna is teaching: Everyone can apply the status of a consecrated animal to a non-sacred animal by the act of substitution, both men and women. But that is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution, as, if one did effect substitution, the substitution takes effect only after the fact, and he incurs the forty lashes.

הכל לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי יורש ודלא כר' יהודה

§ The mishna teaches: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal. The Gemara asks: What does the comprehensive term: Everyone, serve to include? The Gemara answers: It serves to include an inheritor, and accordingly, this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

דתנן יורש סומך יורש ממיר דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר יורש אינו סומך ויורש אינו ממיר

As we learned in a baraita: An inheritor who inherited a consecrated animal places his hands on the head of the offering when he sacrifices it as would the original owner, and likewise an inheritor is able to substitute a non-sacred animal for the consecrated one that he inherited. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An inheritor does not place his hands on the head of the offering when he sacrifices it, and an inheritor does not substitute a non-sacred animal for a consecrated one that he inherited. These acts may be performed only by the one who initially consecrated the animal. The mishna indicates that an inheritor is able to effect substitution, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה יליף תחילת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחילת הקדש יורש אינו ממיר

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: He derives the halakhot of the animal’s initial consecration from the end of the consecration, i.e., the sacrifice of the consecrated animal, as follows: Just as with regard to the end of a consecrated animal, an inheritor does not place his hands on the head of the offering before slaughter, so too, with regard to the initial consecration, an inheritor does not effect substitution to consecrate the animal.

וסמיכה גופה מנלן תלת (ויקרא ג, א) קרבנו כתיבי חד קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים וחד קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו וחד קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the halakha of placing hands itself? The Gemara answers: The term “his offering” is written three times in the passage discussing a peace offering, in connection with the placing of hands (Leviticus 3:2, 8, 12). One instance teaches that the requirement of placing hands applies to his offering but not the offering of a gentile. And one instance teaches that it applies to his offering but not the offering of another, as only the owner places his hands on the offering. And one instance teaches that it applies to his offering but not the offering of his father, as an inheritor does not place his hands on an offering he inherited.

ולר' מאיר דאמר יורש סומך והכתיב קרבנו ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות כל בעלי חוברין לסמיכה

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Meir, who said that an inheritor places his hands on the head of the offering when he sacrifices it, isn’t the term “his offering” written in the verse? How does he interpret the third instance of that term? The Gemara explains: He requires that term to include all joint owners [ba’alei ḥoverin] in the halakha of placing hands, to teach that they all must place their hands on the offering’s head.

ורבי יהודה בעלי חוברין לסמיכה לית ליה מאי טעמא דהא לא מיחד קרבן דידהו ואיבעית אימא לעולם אית ליה וקרבן עובד כוכבים וקרבן חבירו מחד קרא נפקא דאייתר ליה חד לבעלי חוברין לסמיכה

The Gemara notes: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, he does not accept that joint owners are included in the requirement of placing hands. What is the reason for this? The reason is that their offering is not specific to one person and is therefore not included in the term “his offering.” And if you wish, say instead that actually, he accepts that one instance of “his offering” serves to include joint owners, and he derives both the halakha of the offering of a gentile and that of the offering of another from one verse, so that one instance of the term “his offering” remains for him to include joint owners in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering, and the third instance serves to teach that an inheritor does not place hands on the offering of his father.

ור"מ דאמר יורש ממיר מאי טעמא אמר לך (ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבו' היורש

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who said that an inheritor can effect substitution? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could say to you that the repetition of the verb in the verse: “And if he shall at all substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), serves to include the inheritor.