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

Daf Yomi

August 14, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

Temurah 26

If one says, “This animal is substitution for a burnt offering, a substitution for a peace offering,” Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi debate whether we hold by the first part of his statement or by both parts. The gemara brings various similar cases where Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi have the same debate and discuss what is to be done with the animals in the various cases. Which use of words would effect substitution and which wording would effect redemption?


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

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讗讜诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉


GEMARA: Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosei, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, with regard to the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei: Everyone concedes in a case where one says: The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering will take effect and afterward the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering will take effect. In this case, everyone agrees that one attends only to the first statement, i.e., the sanctity of the burnt offering takes effect but the sanctity of the peace offering does not take effect.


诇讗 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇转讛 讝讜 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 拽讚砖讬


Likewise, everyone agrees that in a case where one says: Consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering shall not take effect unless the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering shall also take effect, the animal is consecrated as both a burnt offering and a peace offering.


诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讗讜诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讞讜诇 讝讜


Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree only with regard to a case such as the one in our mishna, where one said: This animal is the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering. As Rabbi Meir holds: Since if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, he should have said: The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering, but instead he said: The substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, he is considered like one who says: The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering will take effect and afterward the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering will take effect. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir only the first sanctity takes effect; the second sanctity cannot take effect because the animal is already consecrated.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


And Rabbi Yosei holds that from the outset he intended for both sanctities to take effect, and he did not say: The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering, because he reasoned that if he said that, one would say that he intends for the animal to be consecrated with two sanctities, half as a substitution of the burnt offering and half as a substitution of the peace offering. And if so, the animal cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, because it is impossible to sacrifice half the animal as one type of offering and half as another type of offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that when he says: The substitute of the burnt offering the substitute of the peace offering, he intends for the animal to be both entirely a burnt offering and entirely a peace offering, as he mistakenly thinks that such an animal can be sacrificed in the Temple. But since he intended for both types of sanctity to take effect, the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讚诪讬 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to one of his non-sacred animals: This animal, half of it is the substitute of the burnt offering, and half of it is the substitute of the peace offering, that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering and is therefore entirely sacrificed as a burnt offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is left to graze until it becomes blemished, and then it is sold, and the owner brings a substitute burnt offering with the payment for half the animal and a substitute peace offering with the payment for half the animal.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪转讞诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛


The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, then since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously, his statement stands, and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. The Gemara objects: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yosei taught the entire baraita, and the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讻讜诇讛 转讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


It is taught in another baraita: In a case where one says: This animal, half of it is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as a sin offering, Rabbi Meir holds that we attend only to the first statement that he uttered, and therefore half of the animal becomes consecrated as a burnt offering. Since the animal cannot live if half of its body were removed, the sanctity spreads to the entire animal and it is sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讗讜诪专 讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 砖转诪讜转


Rabbi Yosei says: Both sanctities take effect, and as an animal cannot be sacrificed as two offerings, it must be left to die. The baraita adds: And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree in a case where one says: Half of this animal is designated as a sin offering and half of it is designated as a burnt offering, that the animal must be left to die.


砖讜讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻砖讬讟讗


The Gemara clarifies: That case with regard to which the baraita states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree, who is conceding to whom? Clearly Rabbi Meir concedes to Rabbi Yosei that in that case the halakha is that the animal must be left to die. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Meir concedes in that case? Just as in the first case of the baraita where one mentioned the burnt offering first and the sin offering second, Rabbi Meir holds that only the first expression takes effect, so too if one mentioned the sin offering first and the burnt offering second, only the first expression takes effect; this means that the animal is a sin offering, and therefore it must be left to die, as he is not obligated to bring a sin offering.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讞讟讗转 诪注讜专讘转 拽专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains that the ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say: If it hadn鈥檛 taught us the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the latter case, I would say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Meir in the first clause of the mishna is not that we attend only to the first statement. Rather, I would say that this is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason: In a case of the sanctity of a sin offering that is mixed with another sanctity in the same animal, the animal is sacrificed, and that is the reason Rabbi Meir rules that the animal is sacrificed as a burnt offering despite the fact that the sanctity of a sin offering is also mixed with it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗


And if that is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning, then even if one said: Half of this animal is designated as a sin offering, and then said: Half of it is designated as a burnt offering, the animal is sacrificed. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion. Rather, his ruling is due to the principle that we attend only to the first statement, and therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree in the latter clause of the baraita that the animal must be left to die.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


It is taught in another baraita: In the case of one who said: This animal, half of it is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as a peace offering, the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed. The animal grazes until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal. This animal renders a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for consecrated as a substitute, and its substitute is treated like it, i.e., it is not sacrificed; rather, it grazes until it becomes blemished, and it is then sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal.


诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds one accountable for both expressions that he uttered. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Yosei holds that in that case the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed? Why is it necessary to teach this?


转诪讜专转讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讛讬 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 拽专讘讛 转诪讜专转讛 转拽专讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讛 转诪讜专转讛 谞诪讬 诪讻讞 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讛 拽讗转讬讗


The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to teach that its substitute is also not sacrificed. Lest you say: Granted that the animal itself is not sacrificed, but its substitute is sacrificed, therefore the baraita teaches us that the substitute is also not sacrificed. The Gemara explains the ruling of the baraita: What is different about the animal itself, that it is not sacrificed? It is not sacrificed because its sanctity is deferred from the altar, since it is neither entirely a burnt offering nor fully a peace offering. So too its substitute, whose sanctity comes from the force of deferred sanctity, as it was the substitution of an animal whose sanctity was deferred, may not be sacrificed either.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讞爪讬讛 砖诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 讞爪讬讛 讗讞专转 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讜注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an animal that belongs to two partners, if one of the partners consecrated his half of the animal, and then he acquired the other half of the animal from his partner and consecrated it, the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed. When he originally consecrated his half of the animal, the animal was not fit for sacrifice, as only half of it was consecrated. Although the animal is now fully consecrated, it can never again become fit for sacrifice, since it was once disqualified. And this animal renders a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute, and its substitute


讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讚讞讛


is treated like it, as it too is consecrated but not sacrificed. Conclude three halakhot from this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Conclude from it that an animal that was consecrated with a sanctity that inheres in its value is deferred. One who consecrates only half an animal has consecrated that animal with a sanctity that inheres in its value but not with an inherent sanctity, as the animal cannot be sacrificed.


讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 (诪讜诪讬谉) [讞讬讬诐] 谞讚讞讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讛讜讬 讚讬讞讜讬


And second, conclude from it that not only can an offering that has already been slaughtered become permanently deferred from the altar, but also living animals that cannot be sacrificed for whatever reason are permanently deferred. And finally, conclude from it that deferral at the outset, when the animal is first consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was fit to be sacrificed when initially consecrated and only later disqualified permanently deferred, but the same applies to an animal that was disqualified from the outset, when it was initially consecrated, e.g., if only half of it was initially consecrated.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛


搂 With regard to the consecration of an animal with two sanctities, Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where one said: Half the animal is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, everyone agrees that this animal is consecrated and sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering, not as a tithed animal. The animal tithe is consecrated when it is the tenth of a group of animals that are passed underneath a rod, which is not the case here.


讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讛 诪注砖专 诪讗讬


But in a case where one said with regard to his non-sacred animal: Half of this animal is designated as a substitute and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, which consecration takes effect? Both consecrations are invalid: Consecration as a substitute is valid when a consecrated animal is standing before the substitute, which is not the case here, and consecration as an animal tithe is valid through the process of passing a group of animals underneath a rod. What is the status of the animal in this case?


转诪讜专讛 拽专讬讘讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注砖专 拽专讜讘讛 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the animal sacrificed as a substitute, as the sanctity of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals? Or perhaps the animal is sacrificed as an animal tithe, as the consecration of the animal tithe is more comprehensive, since if one mistakenly counted the ninth animal to pass underneath the rod as the tenth or the eleventh as the tenth, he consecrates those animals that passed before and after the tenth. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讜 转讞转 讝讜 转诪讜专转 讝讜 讞诇讬驻转 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专讛 讝讜 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 讝讜 讗讬谉 讝讜 转诪讜专讛


MISHNA: This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, or if one said: It is the exchange for that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. If he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, that non-sacred animal is not a substitute.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐


And if the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized and assumes non-sacred status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.


讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚转讞转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 讞诇讬驻转 讝讜 转诪讜专转 讝讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the phrase: In place of [ta岣t], is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, i.e., the transference of substitution? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In a case where one鈥檚 non-sacred animal was standing before a consecrated animal belonging to Temple maintenance, and he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby the exchange for that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, he has not said anything, as these terms indicate the transfer of sanctity via substitution, and substitution does not apply to consecrated animals belonging to the Temple maintenance.


转讞转 讝讜 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


But if he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of [ta岣t] that consecrated animal, or if he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, his statement takes effect, as these terms indicate desacralization, and a consecrated animal belonging to the Temple maintenance can be desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a non-sacred animal.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讬转驻讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗


The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And if it enters your mind that the term ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and therefore it effects substitution, as taught in the mishna, what is different in the first clause of the baraita, which states that the terms exchange and substitute are terms that do not effect desacralization, and what is different in the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches that the term ta岣t effects desacralization despite the fact that it indicates substitution?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讞转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讬转驻讜住讬 讜诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讚讻转讬讘


Abaye said, in response: You find that the term: In place of [ta岣t], is sometimes a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and it is sometimes a term that indicates desacralization. It is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, as it is written:


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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 26

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讗讜诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉


GEMARA: Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosei, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, with regard to the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei: Everyone concedes in a case where one says: The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering will take effect and afterward the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering will take effect. In this case, everyone agrees that one attends only to the first statement, i.e., the sanctity of the burnt offering takes effect but the sanctity of the peace offering does not take effect.


诇讗 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇转讛 讝讜 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 拽讚砖讬


Likewise, everyone agrees that in a case where one says: Consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering shall not take effect unless the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering shall also take effect, the animal is consecrated as both a burnt offering and a peace offering.


诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讗讜诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讞讜诇 讝讜


Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree only with regard to a case such as the one in our mishna, where one said: This animal is the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering. As Rabbi Meir holds: Since if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, he should have said: The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering, but instead he said: The substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, he is considered like one who says: The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering will take effect and afterward the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering will take effect. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir only the first sanctity takes effect; the second sanctity cannot take effect because the animal is already consecrated.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


And Rabbi Yosei holds that from the outset he intended for both sanctities to take effect, and he did not say: The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering, because he reasoned that if he said that, one would say that he intends for the animal to be consecrated with two sanctities, half as a substitution of the burnt offering and half as a substitution of the peace offering. And if so, the animal cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, because it is impossible to sacrifice half the animal as one type of offering and half as another type of offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that when he says: The substitute of the burnt offering the substitute of the peace offering, he intends for the animal to be both entirely a burnt offering and entirely a peace offering, as he mistakenly thinks that such an animal can be sacrificed in the Temple. But since he intended for both types of sanctity to take effect, the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讚诪讬 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to one of his non-sacred animals: This animal, half of it is the substitute of the burnt offering, and half of it is the substitute of the peace offering, that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering and is therefore entirely sacrificed as a burnt offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is left to graze until it becomes blemished, and then it is sold, and the owner brings a substitute burnt offering with the payment for half the animal and a substitute peace offering with the payment for half the animal.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪转讞诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛


The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, then since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously, his statement stands, and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. The Gemara objects: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yosei taught the entire baraita, and the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讛诪讛 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讻讜诇讛 转讬拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


It is taught in another baraita: In a case where one says: This animal, half of it is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as a sin offering, Rabbi Meir holds that we attend only to the first statement that he uttered, and therefore half of the animal becomes consecrated as a burnt offering. Since the animal cannot live if half of its body were removed, the sanctity spreads to the entire animal and it is sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讗讜诪专 讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 砖转诪讜转


Rabbi Yosei says: Both sanctities take effect, and as an animal cannot be sacrificed as two offerings, it must be left to die. The baraita adds: And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree in a case where one says: Half of this animal is designated as a sin offering and half of it is designated as a burnt offering, that the animal must be left to die.


砖讜讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻砖讬讟讗


The Gemara clarifies: That case with regard to which the baraita states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree, who is conceding to whom? Clearly Rabbi Meir concedes to Rabbi Yosei that in that case the halakha is that the animal must be left to die. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Meir concedes in that case? Just as in the first case of the baraita where one mentioned the burnt offering first and the sin offering second, Rabbi Meir holds that only the first expression takes effect, so too if one mentioned the sin offering first and the burnt offering second, only the first expression takes effect; this means that the animal is a sin offering, and therefore it must be left to die, as he is not obligated to bring a sin offering.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讞讟讗转 诪注讜专讘转 拽专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains that the ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say: If it hadn鈥檛 taught us the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the latter case, I would say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Meir in the first clause of the mishna is not that we attend only to the first statement. Rather, I would say that this is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason: In a case of the sanctity of a sin offering that is mixed with another sanctity in the same animal, the animal is sacrificed, and that is the reason Rabbi Meir rules that the animal is sacrificed as a burnt offering despite the fact that the sanctity of a sin offering is also mixed with it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗


And if that is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning, then even if one said: Half of this animal is designated as a sin offering, and then said: Half of it is designated as a burnt offering, the animal is sacrificed. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion. Rather, his ruling is due to the principle that we attend only to the first statement, and therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree in the latter clause of the baraita that the animal must be left to die.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪专 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


It is taught in another baraita: In the case of one who said: This animal, half of it is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as a peace offering, the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed. The animal grazes until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal. This animal renders a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for consecrated as a substitute, and its substitute is treated like it, i.e., it is not sacrificed; rather, it grazes until it becomes blemished, and it is then sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal.


诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds one accountable for both expressions that he uttered. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Yosei holds that in that case the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed? Why is it necessary to teach this?


转诪讜专转讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讛讬 讚讛讬讗 诇讗 拽专讘讛 转诪讜专转讛 转拽专讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讛 转诪讜专转讛 谞诪讬 诪讻讞 拽讚讜砖讛 讚讞讜讬讛 拽讗转讬讗


The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to teach that its substitute is also not sacrificed. Lest you say: Granted that the animal itself is not sacrificed, but its substitute is sacrificed, therefore the baraita teaches us that the substitute is also not sacrificed. The Gemara explains the ruling of the baraita: What is different about the animal itself, that it is not sacrificed? It is not sacrificed because its sanctity is deferred from the altar, since it is neither entirely a burnt offering nor fully a peace offering. So too its substitute, whose sanctity comes from the force of deferred sanctity, as it was the substitution of an animal whose sanctity was deferred, may not be sacrificed either.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讞爪讬讛 砖诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 讞爪讬讛 讗讞专转 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讜注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an animal that belongs to two partners, if one of the partners consecrated his half of the animal, and then he acquired the other half of the animal from his partner and consecrated it, the animal is consecrated but is not sacrificed. When he originally consecrated his half of the animal, the animal was not fit for sacrifice, as only half of it was consecrated. Although the animal is now fully consecrated, it can never again become fit for sacrifice, since it was once disqualified. And this animal renders a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute, and its substitute


讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讚讞讛


is treated like it, as it too is consecrated but not sacrificed. Conclude three halakhot from this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Conclude from it that an animal that was consecrated with a sanctity that inheres in its value is deferred. One who consecrates only half an animal has consecrated that animal with a sanctity that inheres in its value but not with an inherent sanctity, as the animal cannot be sacrificed.


讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 (诪讜诪讬谉) [讞讬讬诐] 谞讚讞讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讛讜讬 讚讬讞讜讬


And second, conclude from it that not only can an offering that has already been slaughtered become permanently deferred from the altar, but also living animals that cannot be sacrificed for whatever reason are permanently deferred. And finally, conclude from it that deferral at the outset, when the animal is first consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was fit to be sacrificed when initially consecrated and only later disqualified permanently deferred, but the same applies to an animal that was disqualified from the outset, when it was initially consecrated, e.g., if only half of it was initially consecrated.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讛 诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛


搂 With regard to the consecration of an animal with two sanctities, Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where one said: Half the animal is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, everyone agrees that this animal is consecrated and sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering, not as a tithed animal. The animal tithe is consecrated when it is the tenth of a group of animals that are passed underneath a rod, which is not the case here.


讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讛 诪注砖专 诪讗讬


But in a case where one said with regard to his non-sacred animal: Half of this animal is designated as a substitute and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, which consecration takes effect? Both consecrations are invalid: Consecration as a substitute is valid when a consecrated animal is standing before the substitute, which is not the case here, and consecration as an animal tithe is valid through the process of passing a group of animals underneath a rod. What is the status of the animal in this case?


转诪讜专讛 拽专讬讘讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注砖专 拽专讜讘讛 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the animal sacrificed as a substitute, as the sanctity of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals? Or perhaps the animal is sacrificed as an animal tithe, as the consecration of the animal tithe is more comprehensive, since if one mistakenly counted the ninth animal to pass underneath the rod as the tenth or the eleventh as the tenth, he consecrates those animals that passed before and after the tenth. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讜 转讞转 讝讜 转诪讜专转 讝讜 讞诇讬驻转 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专讛 讝讜 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 讝讜 讗讬谉 讝讜 转诪讜专讛


MISHNA: This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, or if one said: It is the exchange for that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. If he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, that non-sacred animal is not a substitute.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐


And if the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized and assumes non-sacred status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.


讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚转讞转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 讞诇讬驻转 讝讜 转诪讜专转 讝讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the phrase: In place of [ta岣t], is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, i.e., the transference of substitution? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In a case where one鈥檚 non-sacred animal was standing before a consecrated animal belonging to Temple maintenance, and he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby the exchange for that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, he has not said anything, as these terms indicate the transfer of sanctity via substitution, and substitution does not apply to consecrated animals belonging to the Temple maintenance.


转讞转 讝讜 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


But if he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of [ta岣t] that consecrated animal, or if he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, his statement takes effect, as these terms indicate desacralization, and a consecrated animal belonging to the Temple maintenance can be desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a non-sacred animal.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讬转驻讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗


The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And if it enters your mind that the term ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and therefore it effects substitution, as taught in the mishna, what is different in the first clause of the baraita, which states that the terms exchange and substitute are terms that do not effect desacralization, and what is different in the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches that the term ta岣t effects desacralization despite the fact that it indicates substitution?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讞转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讬转驻讜住讬 讜诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讚讻转讬讘


Abaye said, in response: You find that the term: In place of [ta岣t], is sometimes a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and it is sometimes a term that indicates desacralization. It is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, as it is written:


Scroll To Top