002a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ב ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

Mishnah.

Everyone may substitute^[1], whether a man or a woman.

הכל ממירין - an unconsecrated animal in place of a consecrated one.

An individual may not substitute,

לא שאדם רשאי להמיר - since it is written: 'he shall not substitute.'

but if he did substitute, it is substituted,

מומר - meaning the sanctity takes hold on it, and both are holy.

and he receives forty lashes^[2].

וסופג את הארבעים - because of the prohibition, 'he shall not substitute.'

Gemara.

Here is a difficulty: you said, 'everyone may substitute^[3]' - ab initio (lechatchila)^[4].

And then it teaches: 'an individual may not substitute^[5]' - after the fact?

לא שאדם רשאי דיעבד - incredulous? It means: ab initio he may not substitute, but after the fact it is valid.

Or perhaps: 'everyone may substitute^[6]' ab initio -

rather, a verse would challenge you, as it is written: 'He shall not exchange it or substitute it^[7]' (Lev. 27:10).

ולא ימיר - and the Mishnah teaches that everyone may substitute, even ab initio.

Rather, Rav Yehuda said: this is what it teaches: 'everything takes hold in substitution^[8], whether a man or a woman; an individual may not substitute; if he did substitute, it is substituted, and he receives forty lashes.'

ה"ג אלא הכי קתני הכל מתפיסין בתמורה אחד כו' - meaning that the sanctity of substitution takes hold on an animal, whether by a man or by a woman; it implies, even after the fact, that even if a woman substituted it takes hold; and that an individual may not substitute, etc.

What is 'everything' (hakol) coming to include? To include an heir^[9].

יורש - one who substituted for an offering that his father had set aside in his lifetime, so that its substitute is a substitute.

And this is not like R' Yehuda.

As we learned: 'an heir may lean^[10] (on the sacrifice). An heir may substitute.' These are the words of R' Meir.

יורש סומך - on his father's offering, which his father set aside in his lifetime and he did not manage to offer before he died.

R' Yehuda says: an heir does not lean, and an heir does not substitute.

What is R' Yehuda's reason?

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה - for he holds that an heir does not substitute.

He derives^[11] the beginning of holiness from the end of holiness.

Just as the end of holiness: an heir does not lean, so too the beginning of holiness: an heir does not substitute.

ה"ג יליף תחילת הקדש מסוף הקדש - he learns the beginning of holiness, as in the case of substitution.

מסוף הקדש - this is leaning, which is done close to the slaughter. In Nazir^[12] (31) substitution is called 'end of holiness', because there leaning is not discussed at all: substitution is the end of holiness relative to the original offering, which came first. Here, since leaning is discussed, substitution is the beginning of holiness relative to leaning, which comes last, right before the slaughter.

And how do we know leaning^[13] itself?

מנלן - that an heir does not lean.

Three (verses, Leviticus 3^[14]) say 'his offering.'

תלתא קרבנו כתיבי - regarding peace-offerings in Parashat Vayikra: 'If his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings... if it is a goat, his offering...', and in all three leaning is written.

One: 'his offering,' not a gentile's offering^[15]. One: 'his offering,' not his fellow's offering. One: 'his offering,' not his father's offering.

But according to R' Meir, who says an heir leans, is 'his offering' written?

הכתיב קרבנו - it implies that he leans on his own offering and not on his father's offering.

That one is needed to include all partners^[16] in leaning.

בעלי חוברין לסמיכה - if two or three shared in one offering, each one is considered to have 'his offering,' and all of them lean on it.

But R' Yehuda does not hold partners in leaning.

לית ליה - for certainly they need not lean, since their offering is not designated for them, i.e., since it was not fully consecrated to each one separately; and the verse writes 'his offering' and not his father's.

What is the reason? Because he does not designate their offering.

Or if you prefer, say that he does hold it: both 'a gentile's offering' and 'his fellow's offering' are derived from one verse.

מחד קרא נפקא - 'his offering' implies not an agent, whether an Israelite's or a gentile's. To exclude a gentile himself from leaning there is no need, for we say in Menachot (93) and in Torat Kohanim: the children of Israel lean, and gentiles do not lean.

since one (verse) is left over for partners in leaning:

ואייתר ליה כו' - and still it is a third 'his offering', to teach 'his offering and not his father's offering' [as the Gemara would assume], since his father's offering is not like another's, but like his own.

And R' Meir, who says an heir substitutes - what is his reason?

He would tell you: 'If he will substitute, he shall substitute' (Lev. 27:10), the word 'the heir' is included (lerabot).

לרבות את היורש - for one could have written, 'if one substitutes an animal for an animal, it shall be substituted'; so what is the purpose^[17] of 'to include the heir'? That its substitute is a substitute.

Tosafot

מתני' הכל ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים - The Mishnah says 'everyone may substitute, whether a man or a woman'; in the chapter on slaughter (Chullin 2) it does not say 'man and woman'. The Gemara explains that because the whole passage is written in the masculine, the verse needed to include women.

וסופג את הארבעים - Why not teach eighty lashes, since the verse says 'he shall not exchange it, nor substitute it' (Lev. 27:10)? Answer: the lashes are not counted that way; it is punished by forty, since there are two prohibitions, one for his own offering and one for his fellow's, and it is as if he said 'whoever wishes to substitute, let him come and substitute.'

הא גופא קשיא אמרת הכל ממירין לכתחלה לא שאדם רשאי להמיר דיעבד - How do we know the Gemara is asking about 'everyone may substitute' ab initio and not after the fact? Answer: it must be ab initio, since otherwise 'after the fact' would be superfluous. Rabbeinu Shlomo: the Gemara does not ask here, since the end of the Mishnah teaches the forty lashes. Rabbeinu Tam: 'everyone' is strong language, teaching that even intentional substitution takes hold, and the Mishnah's 'everyone' implies that it is offered. Rabbeinu Baruch and Rabbeinu Shimshon differ on the point about intentional and unintentional violation. Rabbi Yehudah's view is that Rav Yehudah's version, 'everything takes hold in substitution, whether a man or a woman', is needed because the word 'everyone' includes a woman's substitute as sacred, and the verse 'if he substitutes' is needed to include women, so 'everyone' teaches that it is offered like a man's.

תחילת הקדש - 'Beginning of holiness': like substitution, which is the 'end of holiness', i.e. leaning, which is done close to the slaughter. Therefore substitution is called 'end of holiness' (in Nazir 31), because there leaning is not discussed at all, and the substitute is the end of holiness relative to the original offering that came first. Here, since leaning is discussed, substitution is the beginning of holiness relative to leaning, which comes last, right before the slaughter. Rashi's words.

קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים - 'His offering, not a gentile's offering': why do we need 'his offering', since we could learn it from 'the children of Israel lean and gentiles do not lean'? Answer: it is needed lest one think a gentile himself may not lean but the priests lean on his behalf; so 'his offering' teaches that a gentile's offering has no leaning at all.

ורבי מאיר דאמר יורש מימר מאי טעמא - R' Meir says an heir substitutes; why do we need a reason for him, since he holds that an heir leans and so the two could be learned from one another? Answer: were it not for the verse 'if he substitutes', which includes the heir, 'his offering' would have been read to exclude the heir and include all partners. But now that 'if he substitutes' is written to include the heir who leans, 'his offering' includes partners. Why is one a limitation and the other an inclusion? Because we cannot limit: otherwise the verse would have been silent, and we would say that partners do not lean, as in the matter of partners and substitution.

Notes

1. 1. To substitute (temurah) means to exchange a consecrated animal for an unconsecrated one; the substitute also becomes holy.
2. 2. Forty lashes: the punishment for violating the prohibition 'he shall not substitute' (Lev. 27:10).
3. 3. The Gemara takes the Mishnah's 'everyone may substitute' to mean even ab initio.
4. 4. Lechatchila: ab initio, from the outset. Bedieved: after the fact, once the act was already done.
5. 5. The Mishnah's second clause: an individual may not substitute ab initio, but if he did, the substitute takes holiness. The Gemara wonders whether this refers only to after the fact.
6. 6. The Gemara suggests the Mishnah speaks even ab initio, and then raises a challenge from a verse.
7. 7. Lev. 27:10: the verse forbidding one to exchange a consecrated animal or to substitute it.
8. 8. Rav Yehuda reads the Mishnah differently: the sanctity of substitution takes hold on the animal, whether a man or a woman substitutes.
9. 9. To include the heir: if the father set aside an animal for an offering and died, and the son substituted it, the substitute is a substitute.
10. 10. Lean: to place one's hands on the animal's head before it is slaughtered (smicha).
11. 11. Derives: learns by gezeirah shavah, two passages sharing the same word, from which a law is carried from one to the other.
12. 12. Nazir 31: there substitution is called 'end of holiness' relative to the original offering that was consecrated first.
13. 13. Leaning (smicha): placing one's hands on the head of the animal before slaughter, as in Lev. 1:4.
14. 14. Leviticus 3: the laws of peace-offerings, where the word 'his offering' appears three times.
15. 15. A gentile's offering is not valid and has no leaning, so the verse says 'his offering' and not a gentile's offering.
16. 16. Partners: co-owners of one offering; each is considered an owner of it, so all of them lean on it.
17. 17. Lerabot: to add to and include within the scope of the verse; here the phrase 'the heir' is included in the rule.