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

Daf Yomi

July 28, 2019 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

Temurah 9

ื‘ื•ืฆื™ื ื ื˜ื‘ ืžืงืจื


A zucchini now is better than the possibility of a gourd later. There is no reason to give up an animal now for the hope of receiving another later.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื


MISHNA: It is written: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). The mishna enumerates the consecrated and non-sacred animals this verse applies to. One substitutes for consecrated animals from the flock of sheep or goats, and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the herd of cattle, and one substitutes from the herd and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the flock. And one substitutes from the sheep and the sanctity takes effect upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females, and from the females upon the males; and from the unblemished animals upon the blemished animals, and from the blemished animals upon the unblemished animals.


ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืืช ืžื•ืžืŸ


The source for this is as it is stated: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for goodโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). And which is the case of good for bad where the substitution takes effect? It is a case where one substitutes for blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. But if an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ


GEMARA: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). When the verse states: โ€œAn animal for an animal,โ€ from here it is derived that one substitutes for consecrated animals from the flock and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the herd, and one likewise substitutes from the herd upon animals from the flock; and one substitutes from the sheep and the sanctity takes effect upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females and from the females upon the males; and from the blemished animals upon the unblemished animals and from the unblemished animals upon the blemished animals.


ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื“ื ืžื•ื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืืช ืžื•ืžืŸ


One might have thought that this is the halakha even for animals whose blemish preceded their consecration. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for goodโ€ (Leviticus 27:10), and which is the case of good for bad where the substitution takes effect? It is a case of blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. If an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืจืข ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara discusses the second half of the baraita: What is the biblical derivation that leads to this conclusion? Abaye said that the verse should have stated: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for it. Why do I need another instance of the term โ€œfor goodโ€? Learn from this repetition that if the animal is good, i.e., unblemished, from its beginning, before it was consecrated, one can render a substitute for it, but if it is bad from its beginning, one cannot render a substitute for it.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื™ื™ืชื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื™ืชืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื—ื“ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžืžื™ืจ ืœืงื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืจืข ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


Rava said: Both instances of the word โ€œgoodโ€ in the verse are superfluous. If so, let the verse write: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it for bad, or bad for it. Why do I need the verse to write both instances of the word โ€œgoodโ€? One instance of the word โ€œgoodโ€ teaches that even if one substitutes a good animal for a good animal, when he effects substitution he is flogged. And the other instance teaches that if the animal is good from its beginning one can render a substitute for it, but if it is bad from its beginning one cannot render a substitute for it.


ื•ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื“ืขืœื•ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืงื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืœืงื™


And Abaye said: The first derivation of Rava is unnecessary, as that halakha is already derived by an a fortiori inference, as follows: Just as one who substitutes a good animal for a bad blemished one, where he seeks to improve the standing of the consecrated animal by making it fit for sacrifice, is nevertheless flogged, is it not all the more so the case that one who substitutes a good animal for a good animal, which are equivalent to each other, should be flogged?


ื•ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ืžื™ ื’ืจืข ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืจืข


And Rava would respond that an a fortiori inference is not sufficient, as one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Punishment with lashes can be based only on the explicit wording of a verse. And Abaye could say to you that this is not a mere logical derivation, but it is included in the language of the verse, as, is substituting a good, unblemished, animal less of an act of substitution than substituting a bad one? The prohibition stated in the verse clearly applies in either case.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื•


ยง The Sages taught in a baraita that when the verse states: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it,โ€ this is referring to substituting oneโ€™s animal for that of others. The phrase โ€œnor substitute itโ€ is referring to substituting oneโ€™s non-sacred animal for his own sacred one. The Gemara objects: But let the verse write simply: โ€œHe shall not exchange it,โ€ and there will be no need to write: โ€œNor substitute it,โ€ as the prohibition against substituting for oneโ€™s own animal can be inferred a fortiori from the prohibition against substituting for anotherโ€™s animal.


ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฆื ื–ื• ื•ืชื›ื ืก ื–ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื™ืœืงื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืžื™ืจ ื“ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืžื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara explains: If the verse had written the prohibition in that manner, I would say that one is flogged only if he stated: This consecrated animal should leave its consecrated status and this non-sacred animal should enter in its stead. But if one effects substitution by simply stating: This is a substitute for that, as he has consecrated both of the animals, I would say that he is not flogged. The additional phrase in the verse teaches us that he is flogged in this case as well.


ื”ืื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื ื™ืžื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื•ืืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขืœืžื ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ ืžืชืคื™ืก ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื•


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of substituting his animal for that of others? If we say that the consecrated animal is his and the non-sacred animal belongs to others, is he able to consecrate an animal in this manner? The Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œWhen a man shall consecrate his house to be sacred unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:14), which teaches that just as his house is in his possession, so too, any item one desires to consecrate must be in his possession. One cannot consecrate anotherโ€™s animal. But rather, if we say that the consecrated animal belongs to others, and the non-sacred animal is his, can one effect substitution for an item that is not his?


ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขืœืžื ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


The Gemara explains: Actually, the baraita is referring to a consecrated animal of others and his non-sacred animal, and it is a case where the owner of the consecrated animal said that whoever wants to effect substitution for his animal can come and effect substitution. In this case, one can effect substitution even for a consecrated item that is not his.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ื™ื”ื™ื” ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืืฃ ื”ื™ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช


MISHNA: One substitutes one non-sacred animal for two consecrated animals and two non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal, and one substitutes one non-sacred animal for one hundred consecrated animals and one hundred non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one non-sacred animal for one consecrated animal, as it is stated: โ€œThen both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). Just as โ€œitโ€ indicates one specific animal, so too, its substitute can be only one specific animal.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”


GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAn animal for an animalโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). From here it is derived that one substitutes one non-sacred animal for two consecrated animals and two non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal, and one non-sacred animal for one hundred consecrated animals and one hundred non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one non-sacred animal for one consecrated animal, as it is stated: โ€œAn animal [behema] for an animal,โ€ and it is not stated: An animal for animals [bivehemot], nor: Animals for an animal.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ืฉืงืจื•ื™ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื”ืžื” ืจื‘ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืชื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™


The first tanna said to Rabbi Shimon: We have found that a group of animals is called by the singular term behema, as it is stated: โ€œAnd many animals [uvhema rabba]โ€ (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Shimon could respond that many animals are indeed called โ€œbehema rabba,โ€ but they are not called โ€œbehemaโ€ without further specification.


ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื•ื ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืืฃ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช


The Gemara asks: And is the reason of Rabbi Shimon really due to the verseโ€™s phrase โ€œan animal for an animalโ€? But isnโ€™t the reason of Rabbi Shimon, as explained in the mishna, due to the word โ€œitโ€ in the verse? Just as โ€œitโ€ indicates one specific animal, so too, its substitute can be only one specific animal.


ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื ื“ื“ืจืฉื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื™ื”ื• ืžื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืœืฃ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™


The Gemara answers: Initially, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion to the Sages by drawing support from the phrase: โ€œThen both it and its substitute.โ€ But when he saw that the Rabbis taught their opinion drawing support from the phrase โ€œan animal for an animal,โ€ he said to them: You can learn the reason for my opinion from there too.


ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ


Reish Lakish says: Although he holds that one cannot substitute two animals for one, Rabbi Shimon concedes that one can effect substitution once and then effect substitution again for the same consecrated animal. What is the reason for this? The reason is that one can ask: Where has the initial consecration of the consecrated animal gone? Even after one effects substitution, it remains consecrated as it was before. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi Shimon maintains that just as one cannot substitute two animals for one, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again using the same consecrated animal.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืื”


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Just as one cannot substitute one animal for two, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: One might have thought that just as Rabbi Shimon said that one cannot substitute two animals for one, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThen both it and its substituteโ€ (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that one can effect substitution with even one hundred non-sacred animals.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the statement of the one who says that one cannot effect substitution once and then effect substitution again, if one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to atone and effected substitution for it,


ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


and the original guilt offering became blemished, and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and then the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, as is the case for any guilt offering whose owner has achieved atonement by means of another offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution for the second animal? Since this animalโ€™s sanctity stems from that of the original blemished animal, and he had already effected a substitute for that original animal, perhaps he cannot now substitute for the second animal, as this would constitute repeat substitution.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ื ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ืžืชื›ืคืจ


Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If his essential dilemma concerns the fact that there are two bodies, i.e., two different animals, then the dilemma would stand even if the original animal and the replacement were of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement by another guilt offering, and the second animal remained a guilt offering, rather than being consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ื”ื•ืžื


And if the dilemma is due to the fact that there are two types of sanctity, it would stand even if it was only one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even where the animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another animal, and it was thereby consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Why did Rabbi Avin present such a complex case?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma: If you say that in the case of two bodies and one type of sanctity it is not possible to effect substitution on the second animal, perhaps that is because this sanctity already had been substituted one time. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Is the offering changed enough to enable another substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again for the same animal, if one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement and substituted for it, and the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for this last animal? On the one hand, it is a different animal; on the other hand, it possesses the same sanctity.


ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


Rabbi Avin raises another dilemma: If the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another as a guilt offering, and the first animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for it? On the one hand, it is the same animal; on the other hand, it possesses a different type of sanctity.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ื‘ืื—ืจ ืื™ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ


Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If his dilemma concerns a case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal. And if his dilemma concerns a case of another body with the same sanctity, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืœ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for the second animal? Do we say that it is with the first guilt offering that he cannot effect substitution again, but with another body, even though it is sanctified with the same type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that with regard to any animal with the same type of sanctity, he cannot effect substitution again?


ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืืœื ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


And if you say that with regard to this other body, since it maintains the same type of sanctity as the original animal one cannot effect substitution again, but what then of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering, and this first animal was then found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? What is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution again for the same animal, since now its sanctity has changed?


ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that when Rabbi Yoแธฅanan states that the owner cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again, this statement applies to the same body with the same type of sanctity, but as for the same body with another type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that even concerning another type of sanctity, since it is the same body, he cannot effect substitution again with it. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


ยง The Gemara cites a similar discussion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who redeems an animal that was originally consecrated as an offering and developed a blemish must pay an amount equivalent to its value and add an additional one-fifth of its value. But one who redeems an animal that was consecrated second, i.e., in place of a desacralized blemished offering, and then developed a blemish itself, must pay an amount equivalent to its value but does not add an additional one-fifth of its value.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก


Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse states: โ€œAnd if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be hisโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi infers that the requirement to pay an additional one-fifth applies to one who consecrates an item directly, but not to the one who applies the sanctity of another item to it.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื—ืœืœื• ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ


Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma concerning a similar matter: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement and it became blemished, and he added one-fifth to its value and desacralized it, and he then used the consecrated money to purchase another guilt offering, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ื ืชื›ืคืจ


Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If he is raising a dilemma with regard to two bodies, i.e., two different animals, the problem should stand even if both are of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement through another guilt offering, and the second animal was never consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ื‘ืœื ื”ื•ืžื


And if he is raising a dilemma with regard to two types of sanctity, it should apply even in the case of one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where the original animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another offering and thereby consigned the original animal to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืชื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If you say that in a case of two bodies and one type of sanctity the owner does not add one-fifth, perhaps that is because one-fifth was already added once to redeem an animal with that type of sanctity. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Perhaps, since the second animal possesses a different sanctity, it is considered to possess its own original sanctity, rather than derivative sanctity, and therefore one who redeems it adds one-fifth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื ืชื›ืคืจื• ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement, and it became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, and he added one-fifth of its value, and the second animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืžื ืื™ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื›ื•ืณ


Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If he raises a dilemma with regard to the case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma about a case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he transferred its sanctity to another animal. And if his essential dilemma concerns the case of another body with the same type of sanctity, he could pose his dilemma with regard to a case where the second animal was not lost and found and consigned to be a burnt offering.


ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื ืงืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงืื™ื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” [ืื™ืŸ] ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma. If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another, second, animal, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it? Do we say that with regard to a second redemption of the first guilt offering he does not add one-fifth, since it is the same body and the same sanctity, but here, when it is another body, even though it maintains the same type of sanctity as the initial animal, he adds one-fifth, as it is considered to be directly consecrated?


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 9

ื‘ื•ืฆื™ื ื ื˜ื‘ ืžืงืจื


A zucchini now is better than the possibility of a gourd later. There is no reason to give up an animal now for the hope of receiving another later.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื


MISHNA: It is written: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). The mishna enumerates the consecrated and non-sacred animals this verse applies to. One substitutes for consecrated animals from the flock of sheep or goats, and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the herd of cattle, and one substitutes from the herd and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the flock. And one substitutes from the sheep and the sanctity takes effect upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females, and from the females upon the males; and from the unblemished animals upon the blemished animals, and from the blemished animals upon the unblemished animals.


ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืืช ืžื•ืžืŸ


The source for this is as it is stated: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for goodโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). And which is the case of good for bad where the substitution takes effect? It is a case where one substitutes for blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. But if an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ


GEMARA: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). When the verse states: โ€œAn animal for an animal,โ€ from here it is derived that one substitutes for consecrated animals from the flock and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the herd, and one likewise substitutes from the herd upon animals from the flock; and one substitutes from the sheep and the sanctity takes effect upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females and from the females upon the males; and from the blemished animals upon the unblemished animals and from the unblemished animals upon the blemished animals.


ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื“ื ืžื•ื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ืืช ืžื•ืžืŸ


One might have thought that this is the halakha even for animals whose blemish preceded their consecration. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for goodโ€ (Leviticus 27:10), and which is the case of good for bad where the substitution takes effect? It is a case of blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. If an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืจืข ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara discusses the second half of the baraita: What is the biblical derivation that leads to this conclusion? Abaye said that the verse should have stated: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for it. Why do I need another instance of the term โ€œfor goodโ€? Learn from this repetition that if the animal is good, i.e., unblemished, from its beginning, before it was consecrated, one can render a substitute for it, but if it is bad from its beginning, one cannot render a substitute for it.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื™ื™ืชื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื™ืชืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืจืข ืื• ืจืข ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ื•ื‘ ื—ื“ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืžืžื™ืจ ืœืงื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืจืข ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


Rava said: Both instances of the word โ€œgoodโ€ in the verse are superfluous. If so, let the verse write: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it for bad, or bad for it. Why do I need the verse to write both instances of the word โ€œgoodโ€? One instance of the word โ€œgoodโ€ teaches that even if one substitutes a good animal for a good animal, when he effects substitution he is flogged. And the other instance teaches that if the animal is good from its beginning one can render a substitute for it, but if it is bad from its beginning one cannot render a substitute for it.


ื•ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืจืข ื“ืขืœื•ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืงื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืœืงื™


And Abaye said: The first derivation of Rava is unnecessary, as that halakha is already derived by an a fortiori inference, as follows: Just as one who substitutes a good animal for a bad blemished one, where he seeks to improve the standing of the consecrated animal by making it fit for sacrifice, is nevertheless flogged, is it not all the more so the case that one who substitutes a good animal for a good animal, which are equivalent to each other, should be flogged?


ื•ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ืžื™ ื’ืจืข ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืจืข


And Rava would respond that an a fortiori inference is not sufficient, as one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Punishment with lashes can be based only on the explicit wording of a verse. And Abaye could say to you that this is not a mere logical derivation, but it is included in the language of the verse, as, is substituting a good, unblemished, animal less of an act of substitution than substituting a bad one? The prohibition stated in the verse clearly applies in either case.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื• ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื ื™ื—ืœื™ืคื ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืœื ื™ืžื™ืจ ืืชื•


ยง The Sages taught in a baraita that when the verse states: โ€œHe shall neither exchange it,โ€ this is referring to substituting oneโ€™s animal for that of others. The phrase โ€œnor substitute itโ€ is referring to substituting oneโ€™s non-sacred animal for his own sacred one. The Gemara objects: But let the verse write simply: โ€œHe shall not exchange it,โ€ and there will be no need to write: โ€œNor substitute it,โ€ as the prohibition against substituting for oneโ€™s own animal can be inferred a fortiori from the prohibition against substituting for anotherโ€™s animal.


ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืฆื ื–ื• ื•ืชื›ื ืก ื–ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื™ืœืงื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืžื™ืจ ื“ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืžื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara explains: If the verse had written the prohibition in that manner, I would say that one is flogged only if he stated: This consecrated animal should leave its consecrated status and this non-sacred animal should enter in its stead. But if one effects substitution by simply stating: This is a substitute for that, as he has consecrated both of the animals, I would say that he is not flogged. The additional phrase in the verse teaches us that he is flogged in this case as well.


ื”ืื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื ื™ืžื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื•ืืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขืœืžื ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ ืžืชืคื™ืก ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœื•


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of substituting his animal for that of others? If we say that the consecrated animal is his and the non-sacred animal belongs to others, is he able to consecrate an animal in this manner? The Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œWhen a man shall consecrate his house to be sacred unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:14), which teaches that just as his house is in his possession, so too, any item one desires to consecrate must be in his possession. One cannot consecrate anotherโ€™s animal. But rather, if we say that the consecrated animal belongs to others, and the non-sacred animal is his, can one effect substitution for an item that is not his?


ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขืœืžื ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


The Gemara explains: Actually, the baraita is referring to a consecrated animal of others and his non-sacred animal, and it is a case where the owner of the consecrated animal said that whoever wants to effect substitution for his animal can come and effect substitution. In this case, one can effect substitution even for a consecrated item that is not his.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ื™ื”ื™ื” ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืืฃ ื”ื™ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช


MISHNA: One substitutes one non-sacred animal for two consecrated animals and two non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal, and one substitutes one non-sacred animal for one hundred consecrated animals and one hundred non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one non-sacred animal for one consecrated animal, as it is stated: โ€œThen both it and its substitute shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). Just as โ€œitโ€ indicates one specific animal, so too, its substitute can be only one specific animal.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”


GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAn animal for an animalโ€ (Leviticus 27:10). From here it is derived that one substitutes one non-sacred animal for two consecrated animals and two non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal, and one non-sacred animal for one hundred consecrated animals and one hundred non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one non-sacred animal for one consecrated animal, as it is stated: โ€œAn animal [behema] for an animal,โ€ and it is not stated: An animal for animals [bivehemot], nor: Animals for an animal.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ืฉืงืจื•ื™ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื”ืžื” ืจื‘ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืชื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™


The first tanna said to Rabbi Shimon: We have found that a group of animals is called by the singular term behema, as it is stated: โ€œAnd many animals [uvhema rabba]โ€ (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Shimon could respond that many animals are indeed called โ€œbehema rabba,โ€ but they are not called โ€œbehemaโ€ without further specification.


ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื•ื ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืืฃ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช


The Gemara asks: And is the reason of Rabbi Shimon really due to the verseโ€™s phrase โ€œan animal for an animalโ€? But isnโ€™t the reason of Rabbi Shimon, as explained in the mishna, due to the word โ€œitโ€ in the verse? Just as โ€œitโ€ indicates one specific animal, so too, its substitute can be only one specific animal.


ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื ื“ื“ืจืฉื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื™ื”ื• ืžื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืœืฃ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™


The Gemara answers: Initially, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion to the Sages by drawing support from the phrase: โ€œThen both it and its substitute.โ€ But when he saw that the Rabbis taught their opinion drawing support from the phrase โ€œan animal for an animal,โ€ he said to them: You can learn the reason for my opinion from there too.


ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ


Reish Lakish says: Although he holds that one cannot substitute two animals for one, Rabbi Shimon concedes that one can effect substitution once and then effect substitution again for the same consecrated animal. What is the reason for this? The reason is that one can ask: Where has the initial consecration of the consecrated animal gone? Even after one effects substitution, it remains consecrated as it was before. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi Shimon maintains that just as one cannot substitute two animals for one, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again using the same consecrated animal.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ืฉื ืฉืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืื”


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Just as one cannot substitute one animal for two, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: One might have thought that just as Rabbi Shimon said that one cannot substitute two animals for one, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThen both it and its substituteโ€ (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that one can effect substitution with even one hundred non-sacred animals.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the statement of the one who says that one cannot effect substitution once and then effect substitution again, if one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to atone and effected substitution for it,


ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


and the original guilt offering became blemished, and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and then the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, as is the case for any guilt offering whose owner has achieved atonement by means of another offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution for the second animal? Since this animalโ€™s sanctity stems from that of the original blemished animal, and he had already effected a substitute for that original animal, perhaps he cannot now substitute for the second animal, as this would constitute repeat substitution.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ื ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ืžืชื›ืคืจ


Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If his essential dilemma concerns the fact that there are two bodies, i.e., two different animals, then the dilemma would stand even if the original animal and the replacement were of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement by another guilt offering, and the second animal remained a guilt offering, rather than being consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ื”ื•ืžื


And if the dilemma is due to the fact that there are two types of sanctity, it would stand even if it was only one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even where the animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another animal, and it was thereby consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Why did Rabbi Avin present such a complex case?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื”ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma: If you say that in the case of two bodies and one type of sanctity it is not possible to effect substitution on the second animal, perhaps that is because this sanctity already had been substituted one time. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Is the offering changed enough to enable another substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again for the same animal, if one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement and substituted for it, and the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for this last animal? On the one hand, it is a different animal; on the other hand, it possesses the same sanctity.


ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ


Rabbi Avin raises another dilemma: If the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another as a guilt offering, and the first animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for it? On the one hand, it is the same animal; on the other hand, it possesses a different type of sanctity.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ื‘ืื—ืจ ืื™ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ


Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If his dilemma concerns a case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal. And if his dilemma concerns a case of another body with the same sanctity, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืœ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for the second animal? Do we say that it is with the first guilt offering that he cannot effect substitution again, but with another body, even though it is sanctified with the same type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that with regard to any animal with the same type of sanctity, he cannot effect substitution again?


ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืืœื ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื•


And if you say that with regard to this other body, since it maintains the same type of sanctity as the original animal one cannot effect substitution again, but what then of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering, and this first animal was then found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? What is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution again for the same animal, since now its sanctity has changed?


ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืจ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืžื™ืจ ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that when Rabbi Yoแธฅanan states that the owner cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again, this statement applies to the same body with the same type of sanctity, but as for the same body with another type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that even concerning another type of sanctity, since it is the same body, he cannot effect substitution again with it. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


ยง The Gemara cites a similar discussion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who redeems an animal that was originally consecrated as an offering and developed a blemish must pay an amount equivalent to its value and add an additional one-fifth of its value. But one who redeems an animal that was consecrated second, i.e., in place of a desacralized blemished offering, and then developed a blemish itself, must pay an amount equivalent to its value but does not add an additional one-fifth of its value.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก


Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse states: โ€œAnd if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be hisโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi infers that the requirement to pay an additional one-fifth applies to one who consecrates an item directly, but not to the one who applies the sanctity of another item to it.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื—ืœืœื• ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ


Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma concerning a similar matter: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement and it became blemished, and he added one-fifth to its value and desacralized it, and he then used the consecrated money to purchase another guilt offering, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืœื ื ืชื›ืคืจ


Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If he is raising a dilemma with regard to two bodies, i.e., two different animals, the problem should stand even if both are of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement through another guilt offering, and the second animal was never consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ื‘ืœื ื”ื•ืžื


And if he is raising a dilemma with regard to two types of sanctity, it should apply even in the case of one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where the original animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another offering and thereby consigned the original animal to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ืžื’ื• ื—ื“ื ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื™ืชื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If you say that in a case of two bodies and one type of sanctity the owner does not add one-fifth, perhaps that is because one-fifth was already added once to redeem an animal with that type of sanctity. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Perhaps, since the second animal possesses a different sanctity, it is considered to possess its own original sanctity, rather than derivative sanctity, and therefore one who redeems it adds one-fifth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื”ืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื ืชื›ืคืจื• ื‘ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ื™ืชืง ื–ื” ืœืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement, and it became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, and he added one-fifth of its value, and the second animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืžื ืื™ ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื›ื•ืณ


Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If he raises a dilemma with regard to the case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma about a case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he transferred its sanctity to another animal. And if his essential dilemma concerns the case of another body with the same type of sanctity, he could pose his dilemma with regard to a case where the second animal was not lost and found and consigned to be a burnt offering.


ื•ื—ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื ืงืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื’ื•ืฃ ืื—ื“ [ืื—ืจ] ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงืื™ื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” [ืื™ืŸ] ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma. If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another, second, animal, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it? Do we say that with regard to a second redemption of the first guilt offering he does not add one-fifth, since it is the same body and the same sanctity, but here, when it is another body, even though it maintains the same type of sanctity as the initial animal, he adds one-fifth, as it is considered to be directly consecrated?


Scroll To Top