Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2019 | 讻状讟 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

Temurah 13

In what categories do the laws of substitution not apply? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis learn these out from different places. Rabbi Shimon adds an additional category and Rava tries to understand what exactly he was referring to. Why are the laws of substitution repeated in the laws on animal tithes?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖诇砖 砖讚讜转 讜砖转讬 诪注谞讜转 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讛拽讘专 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛


A beit haperas extends over three fields, the field that was plowed and the two adjacent fields in the direction it was plowed. For example, if one plowed the field from north to south, each of the fields adjacent to it on the north and south is also considered a beit haperas. But whereas the plowed field is a beit haperas in its entirety, the two adjacent fields are a beit haperas only to the extent of two furrows, one furrow on each side. And how much is the full length of a furrow [ma鈥檃na]? It is one hundred cubits, as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, and who may have strewn the bones throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas up to the full length of a furrow, which is one hundred cubits.


讜讗讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗讞专 转专讜诪讛 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖转专诪讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪转 砖谞讬讛诐 转专讜诪讛


搂 The mishna teaches: And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:3): In the case of joint owners of produce who separated teruma one after the other, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma of both of them is teruma, as each is considered to have separated from his share of the produce.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 砖谞讬讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 转专诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖讬注讜专 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讛砖谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 转专诐 讻砖讬注讜专 转专讜诪转 讛砖谞讬 转专讜诪讛


Rabbi Akiva says: The teruma of neither of them is teruma. Since each separated teruma independently, it is clear that neither accepts the separation of the other, and therefore neither is valid. And the Rabbis say: If the first one separated teruma of the correct measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce, the produce is thereby tithed, and therefore the teruma of the second is not teruma; but if the first did not separate teruma of the correct measure, and he separated too little, the teruma of the second is teruma.


讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜专转 转诪讜专转讜


搂 The mishna teaches: And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. The Gemara explains: What is the reason, i.e., the source for this halakha in the Torah? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). The verse teaches that the halakha of substitution applies only to a consecrated animal and its substitute, but not the substitute of its substitute.


讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讜诇讚


搂 The mishna teaches: And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the verse states: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that only it, a consecrated animal, but not its offspring, renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讛讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讜诇讚 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda reasons that when the verse states: 鈥淪hall be sacred,鈥 this serves to include the offspring. The Gemara adds: And as for the Rabbis, who hold that one cannot substitute for the offspring of a consecrated animal, they maintain that this phrase serves to include one who substitutes unwittingly, so that the substitution is valid as if he had done so intentionally.


诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讘讜专 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛


MISHNA: The birds sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, and the meal offerings do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes, as only the term 鈥渁n animal鈥 is stated with regard to substitution, in the verse: 鈥淎nd if he substitutes an animal for an animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to the community or to partners does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, as it is stated in the same verse: 鈥淗e shall neither exchange it nor substitute it.鈥 One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that an individual renders a non-sacred animal a substitute, but the community and partners do not render a non-sacred animal a substitute. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗


Rabbi Shimon said: The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out in the verse: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:32鈥33)?


诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讬爪讗讜 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讬爪讗讜 拽专讘谞讜转 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转


Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is brought exclusively as an individual offering, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, excluding communal offerings and the offerings of partners from the halakha of substitution. And just as the animal tithe is an offering sacrificed on the altar, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of substitution.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 诪讬 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 讬爪讗讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉


GEMARA: According to the mishna, items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that items consecrated for Temple maintenance render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is an animal of which men bring an offering to the Lord鈥e shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad鈥 (Leviticus 27:9鈥10). This teaches that the halakha of substitution applies to that which is called an offering, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not called an offering.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬 拽专讘谉 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讜讙讜壮


The Gemara asks: And are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called offerings? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: 鈥淥r who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). If the verse had mentioned just the word 鈥渙ffering,鈥 I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as is stated in the matter of the spoils of the war against Midian: 鈥淎nd we have brought the Lord鈥檚 offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 讛讘讗 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 拽专讘谉


The baraita continues: Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it鈥 (Leviticus 17:4), to teach that for any item that is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., that is fit to be sacrificed, one is liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. And by contrast, for any animal that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Evidently, as a verse is necessary to exclude items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such items are generally called an offering, contrary to the first baraita cited.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉


Rabbi 岣nina said: This is not difficult. This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are in fact called an offering, and therefore in the mishna he derives that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are excluded from the halakhot of substitution from the juxtaposition with the animal tithe, not from word 鈥渙ffering.鈥 According to the opinion of the Rabbis, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are not called an offering, and they therefore derive the halakha from the word 鈥渙ffering.鈥


讜诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called an offering? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd we have brought the Lord鈥檚 offering鈥 (Numbers 31:50)? The Gemara answers: These items are called: 鈥淭he Lord鈥檚 offering,鈥 but they are not called: 鈥淎n offering to the Lord,鈥 which is used only with regard to offerings sacrificed upon the altar.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专谞讜 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 讟讜讘 讘专注 讜讙讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches that consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners are not included in the halakha of substitution. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淗e shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute it; and if he substitute it at all, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33). Why is the issue of substitution stated here in connection to the animal tithe? Isn鈥檛 it already stated earlier: 鈥淗e shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good, and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10)?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 诪砖诪注 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜拽专讘谉 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘拽专


Since it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not alter it, nor substitute it,鈥 the verse apparently indicates that all types of offering are included, whether an individual offering or a communal offering, and whether it is an offering sacrificed on the altar or an offering consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淗e shall not inquire.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜讚讘专 砖讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜讚讘专 砖讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛


Rabbi Shimon said in explanation: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out? It is to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it is an item that comes only as an obligation, not as a gift offering, and it is an item that is not brought in partnership, but only by an individual, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred must be an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it must be an item that comes only as an obligation,


讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘砖讜转驻讜转


and it must be an item that is not brought in partnership.


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 诪注砖专 诪注转讛 诇讬讚讜谉 讘转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讜讘转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why was the animal tithe singled out of all offerings as subject to substitution now, after the halakha of substitution was stated in general? It serves to discuss a special halakha with regard to the animal tithe, that of substitution of its name. If, when the animals emerge from the pen to be tithed, the one counting them errs and calls the tenth animal the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, they are both sanctified. The animal that actually emerges tenth is the animal tithe, while the eleventh animal is consecrated as a peace offering. And since this halakha of a substitution of its name applies only to the animal tithe, it is necessary to teach that the general halakha of the substitution of its body, i.e., regular substitution, applies to it as well.


诇讜诪专 诇讱 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 拽专讬讘讛 转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 谞讙讗诇转 转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转


Furthermore, the verse tells you other halakhot unique to the animal tithe: An animal that is the substitute of the name of an animal tithe is sacrificed upon the altar as a peace offering, whereas the substitute of its body is not sacrificed at all. But for all other offerings, substitutes hold the same status as the animal for which they were substituted. Another difference is that the substitute of the name of an animal tithe is redeemed when it develops a blemish, like a peace offering, and the proceeds of the sale belong to the Temple treasury, whereas the substitute of its body is not redeemed, as it is stated with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33).


转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讞诇讛 注诇 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 讜注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 讜转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讗讬谞讛 讞诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 讘诇讘讚


Finally, the sanctity of the substitution of the body of an animal tithe takes effect upon both an item that is fit for sacrifice upon the altar and upon an item that is unfit for sacrifice, e.g., a blemished animal, as the sanctity of the animal tithe can apply even to a blemished animal, but the substitution of its name takes effect only upon an item that is fit for sacrifice. If the animal that was mistakenly called the tenth is blemished, it is not consecrated.


讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讗讬讙专讜注讬 讗讬讙专注 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 专讘讬 诇讗 专讘讬


The Sages say in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Simply because the Merciful One includes a unique halakha with regard to the animal tithe, that it has the substitution of its name, would one assume that it is diminished, and the halakha of regular substitution does not apply to it? The Gemara answers: Yes, one can make such a claim, as we say: That which the verse included with regard to a particular halakha, it included, and that which it did not include, it did not include. Since the passage initially addresses substitution of name solely with regard to the animal tithe, one could assume that this is the only substitution that applies to it.


讜讛讗 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘讚讘专 讛讞讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讞讬讚讜砖讜 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara asks: And from where would this be derived, that in this case we should assume only that which is specifically mentioned? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is derived since this is a case of a matter, i.e., the animal tithe, where the Torah comes to discuss a novel matter, i.e., substitution of name, and as a rule, in such cases the object of discussion has only its novelty, and one cannot infer the applicability of additional principles. It was therefore necessary for a verse to teach that substitution of body, which applies to all other offerings, applies to the animal tithe as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讚注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said earlier that the halakha of substitution applies only to offerings that come as an obligation, should one conclude that it is only an obligatory burnt offering that renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute, but a voluntary burnt offering does not? Rava said to him: A voluntary burnt offering also falls under the category of obligatory offerings. Since he accepted upon himself to bring a voluntary burnt offering, it is considered an obligation for him, and therefore it renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute.


讜诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转


Rava adds: And this qualification mentioned by Rabbi Shimon is necessary only to exclude a burnt offering that came from surplus funds. For example, if one set aside a certain sum of money for a sin offering or a guilt offering, and after purchasing his animal some of the money remained, he must purchase a burnt offering with that money. The halakha of substitution does not apply to such an animal.


诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讘爪讘讜专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The Sages disputed the use of surplus money. Some say that it must go toward the purchase of communal burnt offerings, whereas Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the owner himself must purchase a voluntary burnt offering. What does Rabbi Shimon hold in this regard? If he holds in accordance with the one who said that these surplus funds go toward communal gift offerings, then it is obvious that this offering does not render a substitute, as it is explicitly taught that there is no substitution with regard to a communal offering. Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement would then be redundant.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 讬讞讬讚 讗讝诇讬 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讚注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Rather, say that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the one who said that these surplus funds go toward the voluntary burnt offering of an individual. But this too is problematic, as whom did you hear who holds this reasoning? It is Rabbi Eliezer, but we heard that Rabbi Eliezer explicitly stated that such an animal renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute. As it is taught in a baraita: A burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬讛讜 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one matter, that surplus funds go toward an individual voluntary burnt offering, and disagrees with him with regard to another matter, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, and he, Rabbi Shimon, maintains that it does not render it a substitute.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讘注讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛驻专讬砖 讗砖诐 诇讛转讻驻专 讘讜 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 讜谞转讻驻专 讘讗砖诐 讗讞专 讜谞讬转拽 讝讛 诇注讜诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬诪讬专 讘讜


The Gemara objects: If so, consider that dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin: If one separated an animal as a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement, and he effected substitution for it, and then that original guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which he subsequently lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing yet another animal as a guilt offering; and then this lost animal was found and consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can again effect substitution for it? In this case, the animal in question is a burnt offering that came from surplus funds.


讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you said that Rabbi Shimon maintains that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. There would therefore be no dilemma at all. This is problematic, because the dilemma assumes that one cannot effect substitution twice for the same animal, which is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚拽讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪诪讬专讬谉 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬诪讬专 讘讜


The Gemara explains that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Avin was raising: If a tanna is found who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one cannot effect substitution once and again effect substitution for the same consecrated animal, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, what is his opinion as to whether one can again effect substitution with the animal in question?


讘砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讜拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 诪讗讬


As explained earlier (9b), Rabbi Avin鈥檚 dilemma was first posed with regard to two bodies, i.e., two different animals, and one type of sanctity, e.g., in a case where one separated an animal as a guilt offering, and he effected substitution for it, and the animal he separated as a guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which assumed the same status of a guilt offering. What is the halakha as to whether one can substitute for this replacement? Do we say that since it is a different animal from the one for which he initially effected substitution, the second substitution is effective? Or perhaps, since it possesses the same sanctity as the original animal, one cannot effect substitution for it.


讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 (讗讜 诇讗) 讗诇讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讙讜祝 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬


And then Rabbi Avin further asked: If you say that in the above case one cannot effect substitution for the animal, perhaps this is only because the two animals possess one sanctity. But in a case of two sanctities and one body, what is the halakha? For example, if one consecrated a guilt offering and effected substitution for it, and he subsequently lost it and atoned using another animal, and he then found it again, such that the original animal must now be consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, does one say that since the animal now possesses a different sanctity he can effect further substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: According to that tanna, the dilemma remains unresolved [tiba鈥檈i].


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉



Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 13

砖诇砖 砖讚讜转 讜砖转讬 诪注谞讜转 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讛拽讘专 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛


A beit haperas extends over three fields, the field that was plowed and the two adjacent fields in the direction it was plowed. For example, if one plowed the field from north to south, each of the fields adjacent to it on the north and south is also considered a beit haperas. But whereas the plowed field is a beit haperas in its entirety, the two adjacent fields are a beit haperas only to the extent of two furrows, one furrow on each side. And how much is the full length of a furrow [ma鈥檃na]? It is one hundred cubits, as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, and who may have strewn the bones throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas up to the full length of a furrow, which is one hundred cubits.


讜讗讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗讞专 转专讜诪讛 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖转专诪讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪转 砖谞讬讛诐 转专讜诪讛


搂 The mishna teaches: And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:3): In the case of joint owners of produce who separated teruma one after the other, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma of both of them is teruma, as each is considered to have separated from his share of the produce.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 砖谞讬讛诐 转专讜诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 转专诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讻砖讬注讜专 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讛砖谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 转专诐 讻砖讬注讜专 转专讜诪转 讛砖谞讬 转专讜诪讛


Rabbi Akiva says: The teruma of neither of them is teruma. Since each separated teruma independently, it is clear that neither accepts the separation of the other, and therefore neither is valid. And the Rabbis say: If the first one separated teruma of the correct measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce, the produce is thereby tithed, and therefore the teruma of the second is not teruma; but if the first did not separate teruma of the correct measure, and he separated too little, the teruma of the second is teruma.


讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讜诇讗 转诪讜专转 转诪讜专转讜


搂 The mishna teaches: And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. The Gemara explains: What is the reason, i.e., the source for this halakha in the Torah? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). The verse teaches that the halakha of substitution applies only to a consecrated animal and its substitute, but not the substitute of its substitute.


讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讜诇讚


搂 The mishna teaches: And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the verse states: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that only it, a consecrated animal, but not its offspring, renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讛讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讜诇讚 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda reasons that when the verse states: 鈥淪hall be sacred,鈥 this serves to include the offspring. The Gemara adds: And as for the Rabbis, who hold that one cannot substitute for the offspring of a consecrated animal, they maintain that this phrase serves to include one who substitutes unwittingly, so that the substitution is valid as if he had done so intentionally.


诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讘讜专 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛


MISHNA: The birds sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, and the meal offerings do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes, as only the term 鈥渁n animal鈥 is stated with regard to substitution, in the verse: 鈥淎nd if he substitutes an animal for an animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to the community or to partners does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, as it is stated in the same verse: 鈥淗e shall neither exchange it nor substitute it.鈥 One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that an individual renders a non-sacred animal a substitute, but the community and partners do not render a non-sacred animal a substitute. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗


Rabbi Shimon said: The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out in the verse: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:32鈥33)?


诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讬爪讗讜 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讬爪讗讜 拽专讘谞讜转 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转


Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is brought exclusively as an individual offering, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, excluding communal offerings and the offerings of partners from the halakha of substitution. And just as the animal tithe is an offering sacrificed on the altar, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of substitution.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 诪讬 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 讬爪讗讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉


GEMARA: According to the mishna, items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that items consecrated for Temple maintenance render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is an animal of which men bring an offering to the Lord鈥e shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad鈥 (Leviticus 27:9鈥10). This teaches that the halakha of substitution applies to that which is called an offering, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not called an offering.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬 拽专讘谉 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讜讙讜壮


The Gemara asks: And are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called offerings? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: 鈥淥r who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). If the verse had mentioned just the word 鈥渙ffering,鈥 I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as is stated in the matter of the spoils of the war against Midian: 鈥淎nd we have brought the Lord鈥檚 offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 讛讘讗 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 拽专讘谉


The baraita continues: Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it鈥 (Leviticus 17:4), to teach that for any item that is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., that is fit to be sacrificed, one is liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. And by contrast, for any animal that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Evidently, as a verse is necessary to exclude items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such items are generally called an offering, contrary to the first baraita cited.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉


Rabbi 岣nina said: This is not difficult. This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are in fact called an offering, and therefore in the mishna he derives that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are excluded from the halakhot of substitution from the juxtaposition with the animal tithe, not from word 鈥渙ffering.鈥 According to the opinion of the Rabbis, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are not called an offering, and they therefore derive the halakha from the word 鈥渙ffering.鈥


讜诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called an offering? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd we have brought the Lord鈥檚 offering鈥 (Numbers 31:50)? The Gemara answers: These items are called: 鈥淭he Lord鈥檚 offering,鈥 but they are not called: 鈥淎n offering to the Lord,鈥 which is used only with regard to offerings sacrificed upon the altar.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专谞讜 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 讟讜讘 讘专注 讜讙讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches that consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners are not included in the halakha of substitution. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淗e shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute it; and if he substitute it at all, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33). Why is the issue of substitution stated here in connection to the animal tithe? Isn鈥檛 it already stated earlier: 鈥淗e shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good, and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10)?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 诪砖诪注 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜拽专讘谉 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘拽专


Since it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not alter it, nor substitute it,鈥 the verse apparently indicates that all types of offering are included, whether an individual offering or a communal offering, and whether it is an offering sacrificed on the altar or an offering consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淗e shall not inquire.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜讚讘专 砖讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 诪讝讘讞 讜讚讘专 砖讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛


Rabbi Shimon said in explanation: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out? It is to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it is an item that comes only as an obligation, not as a gift offering, and it is an item that is not brought in partnership, but only by an individual, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred must be an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it must be an item that comes only as an obligation,


讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘砖讜转驻讜转


and it must be an item that is not brought in partnership.


专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 诪注砖专 诪注转讛 诇讬讚讜谉 讘转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讜讘转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why was the animal tithe singled out of all offerings as subject to substitution now, after the halakha of substitution was stated in general? It serves to discuss a special halakha with regard to the animal tithe, that of substitution of its name. If, when the animals emerge from the pen to be tithed, the one counting them errs and calls the tenth animal the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, they are both sanctified. The animal that actually emerges tenth is the animal tithe, while the eleventh animal is consecrated as a peace offering. And since this halakha of a substitution of its name applies only to the animal tithe, it is necessary to teach that the general halakha of the substitution of its body, i.e., regular substitution, applies to it as well.


诇讜诪专 诇讱 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 拽专讬讘讛 转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 谞讙讗诇转 转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转


Furthermore, the verse tells you other halakhot unique to the animal tithe: An animal that is the substitute of the name of an animal tithe is sacrificed upon the altar as a peace offering, whereas the substitute of its body is not sacrificed at all. But for all other offerings, substitutes hold the same status as the animal for which they were substituted. Another difference is that the substitute of the name of an animal tithe is redeemed when it develops a blemish, like a peace offering, and the proceeds of the sale belong to the Temple treasury, whereas the substitute of its body is not redeemed, as it is stated with regard to the animal tithe: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33).


转诪讜专转 讙讜驻讜 讞诇讛 注诇 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 讜注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 讜转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讗讬谞讛 讞诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 讘诇讘讚


Finally, the sanctity of the substitution of the body of an animal tithe takes effect upon both an item that is fit for sacrifice upon the altar and upon an item that is unfit for sacrifice, e.g., a blemished animal, as the sanctity of the animal tithe can apply even to a blemished animal, but the substitution of its name takes effect only upon an item that is fit for sacrifice. If the animal that was mistakenly called the tenth is blemished, it is not consecrated.


讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诪讜 讗讬讙专讜注讬 讗讬讙专注 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 专讘讬 诇讗 专讘讬


The Sages say in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Simply because the Merciful One includes a unique halakha with regard to the animal tithe, that it has the substitution of its name, would one assume that it is diminished, and the halakha of regular substitution does not apply to it? The Gemara answers: Yes, one can make such a claim, as we say: That which the verse included with regard to a particular halakha, it included, and that which it did not include, it did not include. Since the passage initially addresses substitution of name solely with regard to the animal tithe, one could assume that this is the only substitution that applies to it.


讜讛讗 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘讚讘专 讛讞讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讞讬讚讜砖讜 讘诇讘讚


The Gemara asks: And from where would this be derived, that in this case we should assume only that which is specifically mentioned? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is derived since this is a case of a matter, i.e., the animal tithe, where the Torah comes to discuss a novel matter, i.e., substitution of name, and as a rule, in such cases the object of discussion has only its novelty, and one cannot infer the applicability of additional principles. It was therefore necessary for a verse to teach that substitution of body, which applies to all other offerings, applies to the animal tithe as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讘讗 讘讞讜讘讛 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讚注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said earlier that the halakha of substitution applies only to offerings that come as an obligation, should one conclude that it is only an obligatory burnt offering that renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute, but a voluntary burnt offering does not? Rava said to him: A voluntary burnt offering also falls under the category of obligatory offerings. Since he accepted upon himself to bring a voluntary burnt offering, it is considered an obligation for him, and therefore it renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute.


讜诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转


Rava adds: And this qualification mentioned by Rabbi Shimon is necessary only to exclude a burnt offering that came from surplus funds. For example, if one set aside a certain sum of money for a sin offering or a guilt offering, and after purchasing his animal some of the money remained, he must purchase a burnt offering with that money. The halakha of substitution does not apply to such an animal.


诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讘爪讘讜专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The Sages disputed the use of surplus money. Some say that it must go toward the purchase of communal burnt offerings, whereas Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the owner himself must purchase a voluntary burnt offering. What does Rabbi Shimon hold in this regard? If he holds in accordance with the one who said that these surplus funds go toward communal gift offerings, then it is obvious that this offering does not render a substitute, as it is explicitly taught that there is no substitution with regard to a communal offering. Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement would then be redundant.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 讬讞讬讚 讗讝诇讬 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讚注讘讚讛 转诪讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Rather, say that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the one who said that these surplus funds go toward the voluntary burnt offering of an individual. But this too is problematic, as whom did you hear who holds this reasoning? It is Rabbi Eliezer, but we heard that Rabbi Eliezer explicitly stated that such an animal renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute. As it is taught in a baraita: A burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬讛讜 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one matter, that surplus funds go toward an individual voluntary burnt offering, and disagrees with him with regard to another matter, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, and he, Rabbi Shimon, maintains that it does not render it a substitute.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讘注讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛驻专讬砖 讗砖诐 诇讛转讻驻专 讘讜 讜讛诪讬专 讘讜 讜谞转讻驻专 讘讗砖诐 讗讞专 讜谞讬转拽 讝讛 诇注讜诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬诪讬专 讘讜


The Gemara objects: If so, consider that dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin: If one separated an animal as a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement, and he effected substitution for it, and then that original guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which he subsequently lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing yet another animal as a guilt offering; and then this lost animal was found and consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can again effect substitution for it? In this case, the animal in question is a burnt offering that came from surplus funds.


讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you said that Rabbi Shimon maintains that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. There would therefore be no dilemma at all. This is problematic, because the dilemma assumes that one cannot effect substitution twice for the same animal, which is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚拽讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪诪讬专讬谉 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬诪讬专 讘讜


The Gemara explains that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Avin was raising: If a tanna is found who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one cannot effect substitution once and again effect substitution for the same consecrated animal, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that a burnt offering that came from surplus funds renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, what is his opinion as to whether one can again effect substitution with the animal in question?


讘砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讜拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 诪讗讬


As explained earlier (9b), Rabbi Avin鈥檚 dilemma was first posed with regard to two bodies, i.e., two different animals, and one type of sanctity, e.g., in a case where one separated an animal as a guilt offering, and he effected substitution for it, and the animal he separated as a guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which assumed the same status of a guilt offering. What is the halakha as to whether one can substitute for this replacement? Do we say that since it is a different animal from the one for which he initially effected substitution, the second substitution is effective? Or perhaps, since it possesses the same sanctity as the original animal, one cannot effect substitution for it.


讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 (讗讜 诇讗) 讗诇讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讙讜祝 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬


And then Rabbi Avin further asked: If you say that in the above case one cannot effect substitution for the animal, perhaps this is only because the two animals possess one sanctity. But in a case of two sanctities and one body, what is the halakha? For example, if one consecrated a guilt offering and effected substitution for it, and he subsequently lost it and atoned using another animal, and he then found it again, such that the original animal must now be consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, does one say that since the animal now possesses a different sanctity he can effect further substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: According to that tanna, the dilemma remains unresolved [tiba鈥檈i].


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉



Scroll To Top