Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 2

Mishnayos Temurah Perek 2 Mishnah 3

תמורה פרק ב׳ משנה ג׳

3
There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, and greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals. The Mishna explains: There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, as sacrificial animals render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute, but a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Furthermore, the community and the partners consecrate animals as offerings, but they do not substitute non-sacred animals for their offerings. And one consecrates fetuses in utero and one can consecrate an animal’s limbs, but one cannot substitute non-sacred animals for them. There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals, as, if one substituted a non-sacred blemished animal for an unblemished sacrificial animal, then the animal with a permanent blemish is imbued with inherent sanctity, which is not the case with regard to consecration. And in addition, those blemished animals consecrated through substitution do not emerge from their consecrated status to assume non-sacred status by means of redemption, in terms of it being permitted to shear its wool and to perform labor with it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah rendered the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution, as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. But it did not render the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to consecrated items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective. Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration, and if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a tereifa, they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution.
חֹמֶר בְּקָדָשִׁים מִבִּתְמוּרָה וּבִתְמוּרָה מִבְּקָדָשִׁים. שֶׁהַקֳּדָשִׁים עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה. הַצִּבּוּר וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין מַקְדִּישִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא מְמִירִים. וּמַקְדִּישִׁים אֵבָרִים וְעֻבָּרִים, אֲבָל לֹא מְמִירִים. חֹמֶר בִּתְמוּרָה, שֶׁהַקְּדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עַל בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה לְחֻלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּתְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא עָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁים. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, טֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, לֹא קְדֵשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁים:
ג׳

ואין תמורה עושה תמורה – the All-Merciful (i.e., God), said: (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed] and its substitute [shall both be holy],” but not the substitute of the substitute.

אברים ועוברים לא ממרים – for it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[if one does substitute] one animal for another/בהמה בבהמה ” (see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3).

על בעלת מום קבוע (for a permanent blemish)(see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) - that if he substituted an unconsecrated animal with a blemish for an pure sanctified animal, a greater holiness devolves upon it that if he would redeem it, it would go to an unconsecrated state to be sheared and/or labor but rather, according to the laws of Holy Things, that since its sanctification preceded its blemish, that when they redeem them, there is no permission for shearing and working it but rather only a permission of eating, which is not the case with Holy Things, for if their blemish preceded their sanctification, they go out to an unconsecrated state through redemption to be sheared and to labor. But regarding substitution/exchange, Scripture reveals (Leviticus 27:10): “[One My not exchange] or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good,” it did not distinguish between a pure animal and one with a blemish.

עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה – for if he thought to say, “a black bullock that went out of from my house first will be the exchange in place of that,” and it came out of his lips, “a white bullock,” regarding exchange/substitution, it is sanctified, and he is flogged, for Scripture reveals concerning this (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed and its substitute] shall both be holy;” for the altar it is not sanctified and he is not flogged, for an errant sanctification is not sanctified.

הכלאים – (a cross-bred beast) - that comes from a he-goat and a sheep/ewe.

לא קדשים (are not made holy) – through substitution/exchange. But even though that its holiness occurs in its exchange/substitution [of an animal] with a permanent blemish, it does not occur on these (i.e., cross-bred beasts, a torn animal, one born from the side, a beast lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics).

ולא מקדישים (and do not impart [to a substitute] the status of holiness) – other things through substitution/exchange, if hey are holy. But something torn is found that it is holy, as for example, if he sanctified an animal and afterwards it became torn, and in this, it was necessary to state that even though it is holy, it does not impart the status of substitute. But mixed-bred animals and beasts lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics , from the beginning of their creation, they have been ruined , and you cannot find sanctity in them other than with the offspring of Holy Things, for their mother was sanctified before she was impregnated, for now of their own they are holy, for they are from the womb of their mother, and through them it was necessary to state that they don’t impart the status of substitute. But according to Rabbi Yehuda who stated that in the rest of the offspring, holy things do impart the status of substitute. But they are not similar to a defect, for [an animal] with a defect there is a sacrifice for its kind, but those which are not of its kind have no sacrifice and they are considered like an impure animal that does not impart the status of substitute. But we hold like Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Eliezer and like Rabbi Eleazar, for o one disputes them in this.

ואין תמורה עושה תמורה. דתמורתו אמר רחמנא ולא תמורת תמורתו:

אברים ועוברים לא ממירים. דבהמה בבהמה כתיב:

על בעלת מום קבוע. שאם המיר בהמת חולין בעלת מום בבהמה תמימה של הקדש, חלה עליה קדושה חמורה כל כך שאם יפדוה לא תצא לחולין ליגזז וליעבד אלא כדין קדשים שקדם הקדשן את מומן שכשפודין אותן אין בהן היתר גיזה ועבודה אלא היתר אכילה, משא״כ בקדשים שאם קדם מומן להקדישן יוצאין לחולין ע״י פדיון ליגזז וליעבד, אבל בתמורה גלי קרא טוב ברע או רע בטוב, לא הפריש בין תם לבעל מום:

עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה. שאם סבור לומר שור שחור שיצא מביתי תחילה יהא תמורה תחת זו, ויצא מפיו שור לבן, גבי תמורה קדיש ולוקה, דגלי ביה קרא יהיה קודש, לרבות שוגג כמזיד. אבל בכהאי גונא לקדשים, אם בעל מום הוא, למזבח לא קדיש ואינו לוקה, דהקדש טעות אינו הקדש:

הכלאים. הבא מתיש ורחל:

לא קדשים. בתמורה. ואע״ג דתמורה חלה קדושתה על בעל מום קבוע, אינה חלה על אלו:

ולא מקדישים. אחרים בתמורה, אם קדשים הם. וטריפה משכחת לה שהיא קדושה, כגון שהקדיש בהמה ואח״כ נטרפה, ובזו הוצרך לומר דאע״פ שקדושה היא, אין עושה תמורה. אבל כלאים וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס, מתחלת ברייתן נתקלקלו ואי אתה מוצא בהן קדושה אלא בולדי קדשים, שקדשה אמם קודם שנתעברה, דהשתא מאליהן קדשים, דירך אמן הן, ובהן הוצרך לומר דאין עושין תמורה. ואליבא דר׳ יהודה דאמר בשאר ולד קדשים עושה תמורה. ולא דמו לבעל מום, דבעל מום יש במינו קרבן אבל הנך אין במינן קרבן וחשיבי כבהמה טמאה שאינה עושה תמורה. וכרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה וכרבי אלעזר קיימא לן, דליכא מאן דפליג עלייהו בהא: