007b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ז ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

"A freewill offering you shall make it" [i.e., it] refers to a blemished animal consecrated to the upkeep of the Temple^[1].

נדבה תעשה אותו - A blemished animal, [whose worth goes] to the value of sacred property for Temple upkeep; it cannot be brought to the altar, since it is written (Leviticus 22): "you shall not offer of them", etc.

I would have [derived] only a freewill offering [from this verse]. From where [do I learn] a vow?

אין לי - Sc. to include a blemished animal [consecrated] to Temple upkeep.

אלא על ידי נדבה - E.g., "this is [for] Temple upkeep".

נדר מנין - That if one says: "I make a vow of an animal for the value of Temple upkeep", it is a mitzvah to set apart a blemished animal; Scripture says "and for a vow"; and so too the verse derives: "you shall make it a freewill offering" - "and for a vow", that is, likewise for a vow.

The verse says "and for a vow" - I might think even sacred animals for the altar [are included].

Scripture says: "and for a vow it shall not be accepted" - this refers to sacred animals for the altar^[2].

לא ירצה אלו קדשי מזבח - This refers to sacred animals for the altar, for which the notion of "not accepted" applies.

I would have [derived] only a vow [from that verse].

אין לי אלא נדר - Because a vow is adjacent to "it shall not be accepted", implying that if one vows "this is an olah" one does not bring a blemished animal.

From where [do I learn] a freewill offering?

נדבה מנין - Because one may not say of a blemished animal, "this is for the altar".

Scripture says freewill.

תלמוד לומר נדבה - "And for a vow it shall not be accepted"; and so one derives: "freewill" - "which you shall make it", or "vow, it shall not be accepted".

Rabbi says: "it shall not be accepted" - the verse speaks of presenting the animal itself^[3] [to the altar].

רבי אמר לא ירצה בהרצאת גופו הכתוב מדבר - I.e., that he shall not offer it; this too is sacred property for the altar, like the first Tanna.

This is the same as the first Tanna^[4].

Is it not that they disagree about this?

The first Tanna holds that even one who consecrated [a blemished animal] for the value of libations^[5] is flogged too. Rabbi holds that one is flogged only for presenting its body, but not for the value of libations.

Conclude [from this].

But then, what is "it" [in "you shall make it"] needed for?

וקבעי אלא אותו למאי אתא - I.e., let the whole verse be applied to the exposition you are making of "freewill" and "vow".

אלא אותו - For it is written (ibid.): "you shall make it a freewill offering"; why do I need it?

As it was taught: "a freewill offering you shall make it" (Leviticus 22).

אותו - "You" consecrate a blemished animal to Temple upkeep, etc.

"You shall make it a freewill offering, and you may not make an unblemished one a freewill offering for the upkeep of the Temple."

From here they said: one who consecrates unblemished animals to the upkeep of the Temple transgresses a positive commandment^[6].

עובר בעשה - On this positive commandment, as we say: "and you shall not consecrate unblemished animals", which is a prohibition derived from a positive commandment, and it is a positive commandment.

And from where [do we learn] also a negative commandment? As it says: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying" (Leviticus 22).

It teaches that this passage is [also] a negative commandment^[7].

These are the words of R. Yehuda.

Rabbi said to Bar Kappara: What is the source [for this]?

He said to him: Because it is written saying [in that verse].

It is not said in other [divine] speeches - that is, in that passage.

לא נאמר בדברים - I.e., in that passage.

In the school of Rabbi they say: "to say" (the word "saying") was indeed spoken [in that passage].

לא אמור - I.e., God said thus: "Do not say to Israel" - for there is no prohibition here; if they transgress that passage, they transgress a prohibition.

One who brings up limbs of blemished animals onto the altar^[8]

אברי כו' - The limbs, in the manner of an olah.

Rava said: he violates "you shall not burn all of it" and "you shall not burn part of it" [two negative commandments].

Abaye says: one is not flogged for a general prohibition^[9].

על לאו שבכללות - For burning all of it and burning part of it come out of one prohibition, "you shall not offer of them", as explained above. But for each act there is a prohibition of its own: from "you shall not consecrate" (derived above, on 6b) comes the prohibition on consecration; slaughter is from "you shall not offer these to the Lord" (for a limb that is cut or broken), and sprinkling is from "you shall not offer" (for a crushed or bruised animal). Here one is not flogged for each, as Abaye said: one is not flogged for two; but there is one prohibition, and according to the one who says one is flogged for one, it is a general prohibition, as at the end of the second chapter of Pesachim (41a).

An objection: one who consecrates blemished animals to the altar transgresses the "five names^[10]" [prohibitions].

משום ה' שמות - And he counts these two as two out of two.

A refutation of Abaye.

Abaye said: it speaks in the plural, about men.

בגברי קתני - For we are not dealing with that: if he did both he would be flogged twice. Rather, the Mishnah teaches one item at a time: if he offers all of it, he transgresses "not to burn all of it"; if one man offers part of it, he is flogged for "part of it"; but if one man offers one act for all, he is flogged only for "all of it".

If it speaks of several men, it should have said "they transgress" in the plural.

Rather, obviously it speaks of one man.

And [this is] a refutation of Abaye.

Abaye said: one removes [the burning] of part of it and brings in the receiving of the blood^[11].

אפיק חדא מינייהו - Either all of it or part of it; and he brings in the receiving of the blood, which is derived from "you shall not offer" ("from the hand of a foreigner"). And he objects: the receiving of blood is not [counted] by the first Tanna, and yet he counts five.

Receiving of blood [is a violation] according to R. Yose son of R. Yehuda; the first Tanna does not hold so.

A difficulty.

No difficulty: from the end [of the beraisa] it is R. Yose son of R. Yehuda [who speaks].

The beginning [of the beraisa] is the Rabbis.

רישא רבנן - I.e., the beginning [of the beraisa] is the Rabbis', for they do not make one liable for receiving the blood; yet they count five, and this is a difficulty for Abaye.

Abaye's refutation is itself refuted.

Priests may exchange [an animal]^[12] with their own [consecrated animals], and Israelites may exchange with their own. Priests may not exchange a sin-offering, nor a guilt-offering, nor a firstborn.

מתני' הכהנים ממירים בשלהן - Sacrifices that the priest set aside for himself; if he exchanged them, they are seized by the law of substitution.

Priests may not exchange [an animal] - not a sin-offering, nor a guilt-offering, nor a firstborn^[13].

לא בחטאת ואשם - That an Israelite gave to him to offer; if the priest exchanged it, he does not effect a substitution by it, since he has no share in it until the burning of the fat pieces, and afterwards he acquires the flesh; and it is said in the beraisa in this chapter: one may not dedicate what is not his.

ולא בבכור - That an Israelite gave to him; the reason is explained here in the Mishnah itself.

R. Yohanan ben Nuri said: why may one not exchange a firstborn?

מפני מה אין - Priests may not exchange a firstborn; for all of it belongs to them, and they give it to him alive, and the Israelite is not atoned by it.

R. Akiva said to him: a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are given^[14] to the priest, and a firstborn is given to the priest.

Just as one may not exchange a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, so one may not exchange a firstborn.

כשם שאין הכהנים ממירין בחטאת ואשם - For it is certainly obvious to us that he acquires them only from the burning of the fat pieces onward.

R. Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the difference? A sin-offering and a guilt-offering are not acquired during their owner's lifetime; would you say the same of a firstborn, which is acquired during its owner's lifetime?

מה לי אינו ממיר בחטאת ואשם - I.e., the rule is that priests may not exchange sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, etc.

R. Akiva said to him: "And it and its exchange shall be holy" (Leviticus 27) - where does the holiness take effect on it? In the owner's house.

הוא ותמורתו - Equates the substitution with the consecrated thing itself: just as holiness takes effect on the consecrated item in the owner's house, so too the substitution takes effect only in the owner's house; but in a priest's house it does not take effect fully. Therefore a priest does not exchange a firstborn; but an Israelite, if he exchanged it, is seized with holiness, since holiness takes effect on the firstborn in his possession.

So too, the exchange [takes effect] in the owner's house^[15].

The Gemara: "It was taught there: for a firstborn, one may sell it unblemished alive, or with a blemish alive, or slaughtered, and one may betroth a woman with it^[16]."

ומקדש בו כהן את האשה - Because it is his property.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuh: this was taught only [with regard to] the present time [when the Temple is not standing]^[17],

לא שנו - That a priest may sell it alive.

אלא בזמן הזה - Because it is not designated for sacrifice.

since the priest has an acquisition in its body^[18] [while it is alive].

ואית לכהן זכייה בגויה - From life, for in the present time too the firstborns belong to the priests.

But when the Temple stands, since an unblemished [firstborn] is designated for offering^[19], one may not sell it unblemished alive.

גמ' מוכרין אותו תמים חי - Now it is implied, whether in the time of the Temple or in the present time; and it implies: if the Temple stands, one sells it, priest to priest, alive; but a slaughtered one, no - it is a disgrace, for it is not proper conduct to trade in what is brought from it to the altar; and in the present time, one sells it unblemished alive, between priest and priest or priest and Israelite, and the buyer waits until a blemish falls on it and eats it, for a firstborn in the present time, once a blemish falls on it, has only the prohibition of robbery, which the priest was robbed of; if a priest sold it or gave it to him, it is permitted to eat it, as we say in Bechoros (32b) regarding a firstborn with a blemish: "all the disqualified consecrated animals" - Beit Hillel permit^[20], and even a gentile may eat from it; but for an unblemished slaughtered [firstborn] in the present time, it does not exist.

אין מוכרין אותו תמים חי - Because the priest has no acquisition in its body, but only from the burning of the fat pieces onward.

Rava objected to Rav Nachman: "one may sell it unblemished alive^[21]".

Alive, yes; slaughtered, no.

When [is this]?

If you say [it refers to] the present time: is there an unblemished slaughtered [firstborn]?

מי איכא תם שחוט - Here they are consecrated items outside [the Temple].

Rather, obviously it refers to the time when the Temple stands, and it also teaches "one may sell it unblemished alive".

No, it refers to the present time: does [the beraisa] teach "one may sell it unblemished alive"?

מי קתני שחוט לא - This implies that it is not in the present time, for in the present time there is no unblemished slaughtered [firstborn].

Alive, yes; slaughtered, no.

This itself came to teach us that even in the present time one may sell it unblemished alive.

הא גופא קמ"ל - I.e., what the beraisa itself teaches, it was necessary to tell us that one may sell it unblemished alive, since one would think there is no acquisition in them until a blemish falls on it; and this is not because one would infer from it that a slaughtered one is not [permitted], for the beraisa speaks of the present time, and in the present time there is no unblemished slaughtered [firstborn].

Tosafot

אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות - Rashi explains: [the Gemara's point is] that one is not flogged, as Abaye said: one is not flogged for two; but for one [prohibition] one is flogged, and according to the one who says that for one [prohibition] one is flogged for a general prohibition, at the end of Pesachim (41a), the words of Rashi; and so the Gemara's discussion shows.

שאין זכין בחייהן - And if you ask: if they are acquired during their owners' lifetime, how can one say so according to the one who says in the Gemara that we follow the status after atonement? One can answer: he means even after atonement; and it does not come to exclude the owners.

לא שנו אלא בזמן הזה - And if you ask: in the chapter 'The ox that gored the cow' (Bava Kamma 53b), oxen [that gored each other] of disqualified consecrated animals, Abaye said: half damages, and the case is explained as during the festival; but an ox of disqualified consecrated animals is exempt, so 'his fellow' does not apply to it. And there it also says: an ox of a private person that gored an ox of disqualified consecrated animals is liable - which shows that 'his fellow' does apply. One must say: the first [case] deals with a firstborn, which cannot be redeemed, and the Baraita [deals] with other sacrifices, which can be redeemed when blemished; and there it deals with the present time, since the Amoraim who discuss it there did not live in the time of the Temple. Yet there it says it is not his property, so it is difficult that here it says it is his property in the present time. One must say that here it follows R. Yose the Galilean, and that case there follows the Sages; and although in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (12b) the Gemara said [and according to the other one] 'the one as R. Yose and the other as the Sages', one must say that by this that Gemara cannot be explained according to the chapter 'Hapara'.

Notes

1. 1. Bedek ha-bayit: money and animals consecrated to the repair and upkeep of the Temple; they are not offered on the altar.
2. 2. Kodshei mizbe'ach: animals consecrated to be offered on the altar, as opposed to kodshei bedek ha-bayit.
3. 3. Presenting the body (hargashat gufo): bringing the animal itself to the altar, as opposed to giving its money value.
4. 4. The first Tanna: the anonymous opening view of the beraisa, here set against Rabbi's.
5. 5. Nesachim are the wine and flour brought with animal offerings on the altar; "value of libations" is their money value.
6. 6. A positive commandment (aseh) is a command to act. "You shall make it a freewill offering" is one; breaking it transgresses an aseh.
7. 7. A negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) is a prohibition; its transgression is punished by lashes when an act was done.
8. 8. Limbs (evarim) are the parts of an animal burned on the altar, such as the head, the legs and the fat.
9. 9. A general prohibition is a single law stated in general terms, not naming a specific act. Abaye holds one is not flogged for it.
10. 10. The beraisa counts five separate terms in the verse against offering a blemished animal; the Gemara uses this to challenge Abaye.
11. 11. Receiving the blood: the priest catches the blood of a sacrifice in a vessel and throws it on the altar; it is a Temple service.
12. 12. Temurah: the exchange of an animal consecrated for sacrifice for another animal; the substitute becomes holy as well.
13. 13. Firstborn (bekhor): the firstborn of a kosher animal, holy from birth and given to a priest.
14. 14. Sin-offering (chatat) and guilt-offering (asham): offerings for specific sins, whose meat goes to the priests.
15. 15. The Mishnah's argument: the holiness of a consecrated animal takes effect only in its owner's house, so an exchange does too.
16. 16. The quoted Mishnah: a firstborn may be sold alive or slaughtered, and used to betroth a woman. The Gemara asks how this fits the rule against selling sacrificial animals while the Temple stands.
17. 17. The present time: after the Temple was destroyed, when no sacrifices are offered.
18. 18. The priest's acquisition in the body: from birth the firstborn belongs to the priest, even while alive, so he may sell it.
19. 19. Designated for offering: set apart for sacrifice on the altar while the Temple stands, so it may not be sold alive.
20. 20. Beit Hillel: their ruling on a blemished firstborn (Bechorot 32b): it may be eaten, even by a gentile.
21. 21. Rava quotes "one may sell it unblemished alive" against Rav Nachman. The Gemara tests whether the clause refers to the present time or to Temple times, which decides between the two rulings.