003a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ג ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

On his fellow's property: his own benefit.

טובת הנאה שלו - Of the donor, who may give it to any priest he wishes. Alternatively: if an Israelite said to him, "Here is this sela; give it to my daughter's son, a priest," then the sela remains the donor's and not the recipient's, who cannot claim it, since the terumah was separated from the recipient's own tevel, so he would be giving a sela from his own property. R. Abbahu's statement has three parts.

A reply to the objection: it is only there, because it comes by way of an Israelite.

התם הוא דקאתי מכח ישראל - Because the Israelites set it apart, we follow the one who is atoned for, since its beginning and end lie in the hands of an Israelite, who falls within the category of those subject to penalties.

Therefore we follow the one who is atoned for, and its beginning and end were in the hands of an Israelite.

But here the question is raised: must it be under the control of the one who makes the substitution from beginning to end?

הכי גרסינן אבל הכא הכי קמיבעיא ליה מי בעינן מתחילה ועד סוף דתיקו ברשות מאן דעביד תמורה - Thus we read: but here the question is raised: must it be, from the beginning of the consecration to its end, under the control of a person fit to make a substitution, such as an Israelite? This animal's initial sanctity came through a gentile, and although the one atoned for is an Israelite who does not make a substitution, perhaps since at the end it reaches the hand of the one atoned for, who is fit to make a substitution, it takes on the sanctity of a substitute? Teiku.

Teiku: the question stands unresolved.

The Master said: consecrations of gentiles, one may not derive benefit from them and one may not commit me'ilah with them.^[1][2]

One may not derive benefit from them by rabbinic law, and one may not commit me'ilah by Torah law.^[3]

What is the reason? As it is written: "When a person commits a trespass and sins unintentionally" (Lev. 5:15).

And we derive the word "sin" from the word "sin" in terumah.

And regarding terumah it is written: "the children of Israel, and not gentiles" (Num. 18).

And one is not liable on their account for pigul, notar or tamei.^[4]

As it is written regarding tamei: "Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they keep away from the holy things of the children of Israel and not profane my holy Name" (Lev. 22:2).

And we derive that the "profanation" of notar is from the "profanation" stated regarding tamei, as it is written there: "the children of Israel ... and they shall not profane" (Lev. 22).

ויליף נותר חילול חילול מטומאה - Regarding sacred items of gentiles there is no notar.

And it is written regarding notar: "Whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord" (Lev. 19:8).

וכתיב גבי נותר (ויקרא יט) ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את קדש ה' חלל - What profanation is stated regarding tamei refers to Israelites and not gentiles; so too the profanation stated here refers to Israelites and not gentiles.

And we derive pigul's "iniquity" from notar's "iniquity," as it is written regarding pigul: "the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity" (Lev. 7:18).

And it is written regarding notar: "Whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord."

And all of them refer to "the children of Israel and not gentiles."

And one does not make a substitution.^[5]

השתא קא מפרשינן לכולה ברייתא וקתני ואין עושין תרומה - Now we are explaining the whole beraisa, which teaches "and one does not make" a substitution. What is the reason that one does not make a substitution?

As it is written: "He shall not exchange it or substitute it" (Lev. 27:10).

And it is written at the start of the passage: "Speak to the children of Israel [and say to them]: when a man makes a special vow by your valuation" (Lev. 27:2).

Another version: and one does not make a substitution.

What is the reason? The substitution of a beast was compared to the tithe of a beast, and the tithe of a beast to the tithe of grain.

ה"ג דאיתקש תמורת בהמה למעשר בהמה - Reading: "the substitution of a beast was compared to the tithe of a beast." As we say below, at the end of the chapter (Temurah 13): "Is not the tithe included among the other consecrated animals? Why was it singled out for comparison?" To tell you that just as the tithe is an individual's offering and can be substituted, so every individual's offering can be substituted, excluding communal offerings.

מעשר בהמה איתקש למעשר דגן - As we say in Bekhorot (53b): "tithe you shall tithe" (Deut. 14:22) speaks of two tithes, one of animals and one of grain.

And regarding the tithe of grain it is written (Num. 18): "[the tithe] of the children of Israel that they raise to HaShem, the children of Israel and not gentiles."

וגבי מעשר דגן כתיב (במדבר יח) כי את מעשר בני ישראל - Which implies: "the children of Israel and not gentiles." So too with the tithe of animals, and just as we say of the tithe of animals "Israelite and not gentile," so we say of the substitution of animals, since all were compared to one another. From here it follows that consecrated items of gentiles do not make substitutions.

A gentile does not bring libations, but his offering requires libations; so says R. Shimon.^[6]

From where is this? As our Sages taught (Num. 15): "The native, the native, brings libations, and a gentile does not bring libations."^[7]

אזרח - A native: an Israelite, and not a gentile. A gentile does not bring libations at all.

"One might think: its burnt-offering should not require libations."

יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים - Even from communal funds.

The verse says "thus" (Num. 15:11).^[8]

ת"ל ככה - For "thus" makes libations a condition (ikuva) for the offering, which certainly requires libations, even when they come from communal funds. Another version, found in some texts and not in others, implies that an Israelite brings libations even by himself, while a gentile does not bring libations by himself. One might have thought that his burnt-offering should not require libations; the verse says "thus," making it a condition, since his offering certainly requires libations, even from his own property, because they accept from him the value of the libations.

R. Yossi said: I see all of them as stringent.

What is the reason? "For HaShem" is written about it.^[9]

ה"ג מאי טעמא לה' כתיב בהו - Reading: "What is the reason? 'For HaShem' is written about them," without the words "holy to HaShem." I found the same in Zevachim (45a), in the chapter of Beit Shammai: "What is the reason? 'For HaShem' is written about gentile consecrations, as it says: 'any man of the house of Israel who offers his offering...' We establish this verse about gentiles who vow vows and freewill offerings like Israelites, and at its end it says 'to HaShem,' to tell you that they are judged by the law of other consecrated items, so that one commits me'ilah with them and is liable for pigul, etc."

This applies to altar offerings; but with items of the Temple repair fund, one commits me'ilah.^[10]

What is the reason? When we derive me'ilah from the word "sin" in terumah,

like terumah, which is holy by bodily sanctity.^[11]

But regarding the sanctity of the Temple repair fund, which is monetary sanctity, (the verse does not apply).

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: every prohibition in the Torah that one violates by an action is liable; one who violates it without an action is exempt.

And this is the general rule: a prohibition that involves no action is exempt.^[12]

But surely saying (a false oath) is a prohibition that involves no action, and one is flogged for it?^[13]

והרי מימר דלאו שאין בו מעשה הוא - For the matter depends on speech.

As we learned in the Mishnah: not that he is permitted to substitute, but if he substituted, he is a mumar and receives the forty.^[14]

Rav answers: this is R. Yehuda, who says that one is flogged for a prohibition that involves no action.

ר' יהודה היא - For he is discussing this matter below.

And how can we establish our Mishnah as in accordance with R. Yehuda?

But the explanation given for the first clause does not fit R. Yehuda.

for it teaches: everyone may substitute.^[15]

"Everyone": to include what?

To include the heir, and this is not in accordance with R. Yehuda.^[16]

This Tanna agrees with him on one point, that one is flogged for a prohibition that involves no action, and disagrees with him on another point.

For R. Yehuda holds that an heir does not rely on the sacrifice, and an heir does not make a substitution.^[17]

But our Tanna holds that an heir relies on it, and an heir does make a substitution.

Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Amram, who said in the name of R. Yitzchak, who said in the name of R. Yochanan, in the name of R. Yossi HaGelili: any negative commandment in the Torah, one who violates it by an action is flogged.

One who does not violate by an action is exempt, except for one who swears, one who utters (a vain oath), and one who curses his fellow by the Name; even though he did not perform an action, he is liable.^[18]

לא עשה מעשה פטור חוץ מנשבע כו' - For although he did not perform an action he is flogged, as is explained below.

בשם - In the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Said in the name of R. Yossi son of R. Chanina: even one who advances terumah before bikkurim.^[19]

From where do we know that one who swears is liable?

נשבע מנלן - That he is flogged.

R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Meir: "For HaShem will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Ex. 20:7) — the heavenly court.^[20]

Tosafot

לא נהנין מדרבנן - Rabbi Yaakov asked: why do we need to say it is rabbinic? Perhaps it is Torah law, since "man, man" includes gentiles who vow like Israelites, as is said in Me'ilah (7a) regarding Israelite peace-offerings, that one may not benefit from them by Torah law, even though there is no me'ilah in them. And one should answer: since they have no sanctity for pigul, notar and tamei, they have no sanctity for benefit by Torah law either.

ויליף נותר חילול חילול מטומאה - Rabbi Meir asked: let us derive the "profanation" of notar from the "profanation" of tamei, as Zevachim (15b) says that gentile consecrations are not offered in impurity; and the verse "the one who was rejected" (Tziz) is not accepted in impurity. The answer: we rather derive from tamei, since it is in one verse, as taught in Zevachim (45a): "and they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel" — two profanations: one, disqualification of notar; one, disqualification of tamei.

ומעשר דגן - "and the tithe of grain": it says "the children of Israel and not gentiles." This is R. Shimon, who holds this derivation; the Rabbis disagree with him, and the first formulation fits the Rabbis.

מאי תרומה קדושת הגוף - "What is terumah? Bodily sanctity": and if you say that the Gemara says one violates me'ilah with warning, derived from terumah, one would say, just as terumah is bodily sanctity, there would be no warning of me'ilah except for altar offerings. But we hold that even Temple repair items carry a warning of me'ilah, as taught in Keritot (13b). The reason we exclude Temple repair items here is that the verse writes "to HaShem."

והרי מימר לאו שאין בו מעשה ולקי - "Perhaps saying is a prohibition that involves no action, and one is flogged": and if you say that here the Gemara asks, "surely saying a prohibition that involves no action, let us say that it became an action by his speech," as it says below. The answer is that indeed one could answer, but the second answer is better.

אף המקדים תרומה לבכורים - "Whoever brings terumah before bikkurim": below it explains the reason: "you shall not delay your fullness and your tears" (Ex. 22:28): "fullness" is bikkurim and "tears" is terumah, and the verse says, do not delay. Sifrei gives another reason: "let bikkurim come first," since bikkurim have four names; Rashi cites it below (Temurah 4a, s.v. mipnei).

Notes

1. 1. Consecrated items of gentiles: objects a non-Jew dedicated to the Temple. The Gemara asks whether the Jewish laws of benefit and me'ilah apply to them.
2. 2. Me'ilah: deriving benefit from sacred property; it requires restitution of the principal plus a fifth and a guilt-offering (Lev. 5:15-16).
3. 3. Benefit forbidden by rabbinic law: a prohibition the Sages enacted, not one stated in the Torah itself.
4. 4. Pigul: a sacrifice offered intending to eat it after its time; notar: sacred meat left past its time; tamei: sacred meat made impure. Eating any of these incurs karet.
5. 5. Temurah: exchanging an animal that was consecrated for another animal; both become sacred (Lev. 27:10).
6. 6. Libations (nesakhim): wine, flour and oil that accompany offerings (Num. 15). Per R. Shimon, a gentile's offering still requires libations, though the gentile does not bring them.
7. 7. Ezrach: a native Israelite, not a gentile; the verse teaches that only Israelites bring libations (Num. 15).
8. 8. Ikuva: a condition without which the offering is invalid; the word 'thus' makes libations essential to the offering (Num. 15:11).
9. 9. 'For HaShem is written': the verse uses 'to HaShem' for gentile consecrations, so they are judged like other consecrated items regarding me'ilah and pigul.
10. 10. Bedek ha-bayit: property dedicated to the Temple's repairs and upkeep, not to be offered on the altar; me'ilah applies to it.
11. 11. Kedushat ha-guf: sanctity that attaches to the offering's body itself; kedushat damim: sanctity attaching only to its monetary value.
12. 12. A prohibition that involves no action: one violates it by abstaining or by silence. The Gemara asks whether one is flogged for it.
13. 13. Lokeh: liable to malkot, the flogging of forty lashes less one (Deut. 25:3).
14. 14. The Mishnah: one is not permitted to substitute; if one did substitute, the offender is flogged forty lashes.
15. 15. 'Everyone may substitute': whoever may dedicate an animal may also substitute it. The Gemara asks who the word 'everyone' adds.
16. 16. Heir: the one who inherits a deceased person's estate, including his consecrated animals.
17. 17. R. Yehuda: a Tanna who disagrees with our Tanna on whether an heir may substitute.
18. 18. One who swears in vain (Ex. 20:7) is flogged even though he performed no action.
19. 19. Bikkurim: the first fruits brought to Jerusalem; terumah: the portion of produce given to a priest. The Gemara discusses placing one before the other.
20. 20. Ex. 20:7: HaShem does not clear one who takes His name in vain.