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

He derives the end of the sanctified from its beginning: just as the beginning of the sanctified inherits, so too the end of the sanctified inherits ('sumach').

הכי גרסינן ויליף סוף הקדש מתחלת הקדש כו': - Our text reads thus: he derives the end of the sanctified from the beginning of the sanctified, and so on.

Rabbi Yehuda [asks]: if the verse says 'and if he (ham-er) shall substitute', what is it for?

It is to include the woman.

את האשה - That her substitute is a substitute, and she is flogged for the negative commandment 'he shall not substitute'.

As it was taught: 'Because the whole matter speaks only in the masculine form, as it says: he shall not exchange it, nor substitute it.'

אלא בלשון זכר - Only in the masculine form: it is written 'lo yachlifenu' (masculine), and not 'lo tachlifenu' (feminine).

- From where do we know a woman?

מה סופנו לרבות כו' - That is, from where do we learn that 'its end' includes the woman?

'And if he (ham-er) shall substitute': to include the woman.

ת"ל ואם המר ימיר - Since the verse is written twice.

And according to R. Meir, from where do we know a woman?

ולר' מאיר - Because it is needed: 'and if he shall substitute' is needed to include an heir; from where do we know a woman?

He derives it from 've-im' (the vav in 'and if').

נפקא ליה מוי"ו - Because the verse could have written 'im hamer yamir' but it writes 've-im'.

And Rabbi Yehuda? 'And if he does not expound.'

Both R. Meir and R. Yehuda: the reason the verse includes the woman is that, had the verse not included her, I would have thought that when a woman makes a substitution^[1] she is not flogged.

And did not Rav Yehuda say in the name of Rav, and so taught the School of R. Yishmael: (Num. 5) 'whether man or woman, when they do any of all the sins of man' - the verse equates a woman with a man for all the punishments of the Torah?

It is needed. Lest you say: that is so only for a punishment that is equal between an individual and the community; but here, since this punishment is not equal in every respect,

as we learned: 'Neither the community nor partners make a substitution' - a woman too, when she makes a substitution, is not flogged; he teaches us.

לא לקיא - That if she substituted, her substitute is not a substitute. [The Gemara] answers: this applies only to a prohibition involving an act, where these punishments are equal to one another, as written 'who do' (implying punishments involving an act), such as desecration of Shabbat and other prohibitions involving an act; but a prohibition involving no act, such as substitution, which depends on speech, one might say she is not flogged, so he teaches us. Another version: the books read: 'this is only a punishment equal between individual and community; in this punishment alone they were made equal, but here, in substitution, the community does not make substitution, as we say in another chapter (13a), and it is derived from tithes.'

Bei Rami bar Chama asked: may a minor^[2] substitute?

What is the case? If you say, a minor who has not reached the age of vows^[3],

שלא הגיע לעונת נדרים - Such as one under twelve years old, as we say in tractate Nazir (62b): when a man shall clearly utter includes one close to being a man, such as a twelve-year-old. Once he knows to whom to direct a vow or a consecration, his vow is a vow and his consecration is a consecration; less than that, even if he knows, his words mean nothing. So a thirteen-year-old, even though he does not know to whom his utterance is directed, his acts are valid acts.

- Do not ask: since he cannot consecrate, can he substitute?

אקדושי לא מקדיש - As I explained above, his words mean nothing.

אמורי מימר - Said in astonishment: how could he be flogged?

Rather, the question is about a minor who has reached the age of vows.

שהגיע לעונת נדרים - A twelve-year-old, for we say there that his vows are examined: if he knows to whom he directs a vow, his acts are valid acts; if not, they are not.

Do we say: since the Master said, 'When a man' (Lev. 27) - why is ki yafli neder written? To include one close to a man, so that his consecration is consecrated. Since he can consecrate, can he also substitute an animal? Or, since he is not subject to punishments, he is not included in substitution?

דלאו בר עונשין הוא - Until thirteen years.

לא מיתפיס - In substitution, for it is written: he shall not exchange it, nor substitute it; and it and its substitute shall be holy - he who falls under 'he shall not exchange' (one subject to punishments) is also included in 'shall be holy', to exclude a minor who is not subject to punishment.

If you say a minor can make a substitution, since he comes under the category of those liable to punishment.

ואפילו אם תמצא לומר קטן עביד תמורה כו' - This is an additional emphasis that comes to teach us, and not because it is so.

An idolater^[4] - may he substitute? Shall we say [yes], since he can consecrate?

מדאקדושי מקדיש - For we include, in Menachot (73a), 'ish ish mi-bnei Yisrael asher yakriv korbano', and we say: why does the verse say 'ish ish'? To include idolaters who vow vows and freewill offerings like Israelites.

As it was taught: why does the verse say 'ish ish'? To include idolaters, who vow vows and freewill offerings like Israelites. Shall we say they also make a substitution, or, since they are not included in punishments, if they make a substitution it is not consecrated?

דלא אתי לכלל עונשין - For an idolater is never liable to punishments at all, but a minor comes under punishments at thirteen years and one day.

Rava said: come and hear, as taught: the consecrated things of idolaters: one may not derive benefit from them, nor commit me'ilah.

לא נהנין ולא מועלין - That if one derives benefit from them he does not bring a me'ilah offering, for we do not judge him as with other sacrifices, where one who derives benefit commits me'ilah, because they are forbidden for benefit only by rabbinic law, as below.^[5]

And one is not liable on them for pigul, notar and tamei^[6]. They do not make a substitution.

ואין חייבין עליהן כו' - As concluded below.

And they do not bring libations^[7].

ואין מביאין כו' - [Rashi's text reads] 'and they do not bring libations', without 'upon them'. Its meaning: idolaters do not bring libations on their own, as Israelites who volunteer libations on their own; but with their offering they do bring libations, as we say in Shekalim (11a): this is one of the enactments of the court, that an idolater who sends his burnt offering and the money for its libations from overseas, we accept it; but his offering certainly requires libations, since with the offering they bring libations.

But his offering requires libations. Words of R. Shimon.

R. Yossi said: I see to be stringent with all of them.

בכולן רואה אני להחמיר - That they commit me'ilah and are liable for pigul, notar and tamei like other sacrifices, except for libations, which certainly are not brought.

Only with consecrated things of the altar, but with consecrated property of the Temple^[8] one commits me'ilah.

בד"א - Above it was already explained; this is the statement of the Tanna Kama: 'only with the consecrated altar-things of an idolater, one does not commit me'ilah'.

אבל בקדשי בדק הבית - That when idolaters consecrate [Temple property] one commits me'ilah; Zevachim explains the reason in the chapter 'Beit Shammai' (45b), and some texts read it here too, in Temurah.

Does it teach at least that they do not make a substitution?

קתני מיהא - That the consecrated things of idolaters do not make a substitution, and from this the question can be settled.

And Rami bar Chama: [the question is] an idolater who consecrates [an animal] for an idolater's atonement - I have no question.

אמר לו בהקדש עובדי כוכבים - That is: if [the question is] because of this, it is not necessary; from here one cannot resolve it at all, since where an idolater consecrated for an idolater's atonement, he set it apart for his own atonement.

לא קמיבעיא לי - That his consecration does not make a substitution, since he is not one who comes under punishments.

But I have a question: an idolater who consecrates and an Israelite who is atoned by it.

ומתכפר ישראל - That the idolater set it aside for an Israelite's needs, so that the Israelite is atoned by it.

- Do we go after the one who consecrates, or after the one who is atoned?

בתר מקדיש אזלינן - That the one who consecrates is an idolater, who is not liable to punishments, and he does not make a substitution.

או בתר מתכפר - That he is an Israelite and falls under the category of lashes. Likewise: resolve it from what R. Abbahu says below.

Resolve it from R. Abbahu.

For R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yochanan: one who consecrates adds a fifth^[9].

המקדיש מוסיף חומש - That if he wishes to redeem his consecrated object, e.g. one that developed a blemish, he may redeem it and adds a fifth; but for a substitute he does not add a fifth, as it is written 'if the one who consecrates...' (Lev. 27): you add a fifth on the first consecration, not on a second consecration, such as a substitute. [Rashi also notes:] if one consecrates a house or field and the owner comes to redeem it, he may not redeem it without a fifth, as written 'and if the one who consecrates shall redeem it and add its fifth'; but if another redeemed it, the Torah did not obligate him to give a fifth.

And one who is atoned makes a substitution.

ומתכפר עושה תמורה - That if an Israelite sets apart an offering so that another Israelite is atoned by it, and says: the one who is atoned - its substitute is a substitute, and he is flogged; since it was set aside for his use, it is called his offering. We follow the one who is atoned, and resolve it from this.

And one who makes terumah from his own [produce].

והתורם - From his own grain, on his fellow's tevel, to exempt it from tithes^[10].

Tosafot

ואין מביאין נסכים - Rashi explains: 'they do not bring libations' - idolaters alone do not bring libations on their own, as Israelites who volunteer libations on their own; but with their burnt offering they do bring libations, as in Shekalim (11a), one of the enactments of the court (as above).

במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית מועלין - Rashi explains: the conclusion of the matter is as R. Yossi; the stated rule is that R. Yossi says 'be stringent in all', and the explicit statement of the beraisa is that even R. Shimon agrees about consecrated property of the Temple.

קתני מיהת אין עושין תמורה - Tosafot asks: perhaps the question was asked according to R. Yossi, who says 'be stringent in all'? They answer: it is preferable to resolve the question also according to R. Shimon; or it must be that according to R. Yossi the question cannot be resolved, since he holds that they do make a substitution, and if the idolater himself cannot make a substitution, how can one make a burnt offering?

Notes

1. 1. Temurah: exchanging a consecrated animal for another; if one exchanges, both become consecrated.
2. 2. A minor under the age of mitzvot; the question is whether he can make a substitution.
3. 3. Age twelve, when a minor's vows are examined as to whether he knows to whom he directs them.
4. 4. A gentile, who is not bound by the mitzvot; the question is whether his consecrations count as Israelite consecrations.
5. 5. Me'ilah: deriving benefit from consecrated property; the guilt offering brought for that sin.
6. 6. Three sins relating to sacrifices: pigul (intent to eat the sacrifice out of its time), notar (eating after its time), tamei (eating in impurity).
7. 7. The wine and oil brought together with sacrifices (libations).
8. 8. Consecrated property of the Temple (bedek ha-bayit): Temple funds for repairs, not eaten by the altar's servants.
9. 9. Chomesh: the added fifth paid when redeeming consecrated property.
10. 10. Terumah from one's own produce on another's tevel (untithed grain), to exempt that grain from tithes.