009a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ט ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

Bitzina tov mikra:

בוצינא דהשתא טב מקרא דלמחר בוצינא דלעת קטנה קרא דלעת גדולה - i.e., it is better that we sell it at its value, lest if we leave them some of the money it will be of no use to us, and they will not give us their firstborn.^[1]

They exchange (memirin) a sheep for cattle and cattle for sheep; a ewe for a ram; a lamb for a kid and a kid for a lamb; a male for a female and a female for a male; an unblemished animal for a blemished one and a blemished one for an unblemished one.^[2]

As it is said (Vayikra 27:10): "He shall not exchange it, nor substitute for it, good for bad or bad for good."

מתני' טוב ברע - Mishnah: an unblemished common animal may not be made to take the place of a blemished consecrated one. "If he exchanges it, etc." shows that blemished animals make a substitute, and a blemish that came after consecration makes a substitute, as written "or bad for good", i.e. a blemished common animal for an unblemished consecrated one.

And what is "good for bad"? A blemished animal whose consecration preceded its blemish.^[3]

ואי זהו טוב ברע - i.e., which is the bad consecrated animal that makes a substitute: one whose consecration preceded its blemish. If its blemish preceded its consecration, it does not make a substitute. In the Gemara he explains the question.

From where do we know this? As our Rabbis taught: "an animal for an animal" (Vayikra 27:10). From here: one may exchange sheep for cattle, cattle for sheep, sheep for goats, goats for sheep, males for females, females for males, unblemished for blemished, and blemished for unblemished.^[4]

I would have thought: even if the blemish preceded the consecration. The verse says: "He shall not exchange it... good for bad or bad for good", and "bad for good" means a blemished animal whose consecration preceded its blemish.

What is the Talmud's question?

Abaye said: let the verse read "He shall not exchange it, nor substitute for it, good for bad or bad in it [bo] for good." Then what is the other "good for good" needed for?

בטוב בתרא ל"ל לומר לך טוב מעיקרו - i.e., that when it was consecrated it was unblemished and afterwards a blemish fell on it, it makes a substitute.

Conclude from this: an animal that was unblemished when consecrated makes a substitute; one that was blemished when consecrated does not make a substitute.

Rava said: both "good"s are superfluous. If so, let the verse write it with only one of them. Why write both? One "good" teaches: even good for good, if he exchanges, he is flogged.^[5]

גמ' נכתוב לא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בו - i.e., the verse would have said "he shall not exchange it, nor substitute for it, bad for good or bad in it", which would imply that a bad animal may not be exchanged for a good one, nor a good one for a bad one.

לא ימיר אותו ברע - This implies that it itself was good.

או רע - Implies: a bad common animal may not be exchanged for a good one.

And the other "good" teaches: an animal that was good when consecrated makes a substitute; one that was bad when consecrated does not make a substitute.^[6]

Abaye said: it is a kal vachomer (an argument from the lesser to the greater). If good for bad, which benefits the consecration, is flogged, then good for good, where the two are equal, is all the more so flogged.^[7]

טוב ברע - Good common animal for a bad consecrated one.

דעלויי מעלי ליה - It benefits the consecration, so he is flogged. (Whether good for good also requires a verse is a question.)

Rava said: we do not punish by way of kal vachomer.^[8]

אין עונשין מן הדין - Therefore the verse was needed, because by kal vachomer we do not flog when one exchanges good for good.

Abaye said to him: this is not a valid argument at all. Is not "good" worse than "bad"?

ואביי אמר - Abaye said to him: this is not a rule of "we do not punish by kal vachomer". It only reveals a matter: where the verse teaches that a good common animal is flogged when exchanged for a bad consecrated one, it also reveals that a good consecrated animal is flogged if one exchanges it for a good one.

דמי גרע טוב מרע - i.e., is the good of the consecration worse than the bad of the consecration? Just as one is flogged for exchanging a bad consecrated animal, so too for a good consecrated animal; the Merciful One cares only that nothing of the consecration be exchanged.

The Sages taught: "He shall not exchange it" refers to an exchange with another's animal; "nor substitute it" refers to an exchange with his own. Why then does the verse write "he shall not exchange it" and not only "nor substitute it"? Had it written only "he shall not exchange it", I would have said that only the one that goes out and the one that comes in is flogged; but a substitution, where both are consecrated, is not flogged. So the verse teaches that this too is flogged.^[9]

'חילוף משמע ע"י ב' אנשים ולא בעי ולא ימיר דמי גרע של עצמו משל אחרים: - "Exchange" implies through two people; "nor substitute" is needed, since is one's own worse than another's? (Rashi's wording here is unclear; see translation doubts.)

חילוף תצא זו ותכנס זו - And there, although nothing of the consecration benefited, an unblemished [animal] does not leave the consecrated status for chullin, nevertheless he is flogged, since he intended to take the consecration out into chullin.

What is the case of "another's"? If we say: a consecrated animal of his own and a common animal of the public, can he consecrate it?

"When a man consecrates his house to the Lord" (Vayikra 27:14): the Torah says, just as his house is under his control, so is everything under his control.

But if so: a consecrated animal that belongs to the public and a common animal that is his own. Can he dedicate a thing that is not his, forever?

The case is: a consecrated animal of the public and a common animal of his own, as when the owner of the consecrated animal proclaims: "Whoever wishes to exchange his animal, let him come and exchange."

Mishnah: They may exchange one for two and two for one, one for a hundred and a hundred for one. Rabbi Shimon says: they may exchange only one for one.^[10]

מתני' ממירין אחד - Of common animals.

בשנים - Of consecrated animals, and he says: this one is in place of these.

ושנים - Of common animals for one of consecrated: these are in place of this one.

Rabbi Shimon says: only one for one, as it is said: "and it and its substitute shall be holy". Just as the original is singular, so the substitute is singular.

מה הוא מיוחד - Because "hu" is written.

From where do we know this? As our Rabbis taught: "an animal for an animal" (Vayikra 27:10). From here: one may exchange one for two, two for one, one for a hundred, and a hundred for one.

Rabbi Shimon says: only one for one, as it is said: "an animal for an animal", and not "an animal for animals" and not "animals for an animal".

He said to them: we find that cattle (behemot) are called behemah, as it is said (Yonah 4:11): "and much cattle (uvehemah rabbah)".^[11]

And as for Rabbi Shimon: "much cattle" is called behemah, but bare "behemah" is not called (the plural). And Rabbi Shimon's reason is because of behemah.

And the reason of Rabbi Shimon is from "hu": just as it is singular, so the substitute is singular.^[12]

גמ' והא טעמיה דר' שמעון במתניתין משום האי קרא הוא - The verse "and it and its substitute". Answer: Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may exchange and re-exchange: another animal for the very first consecrated animal, even up to a hundred.

At first Rabbi Shimon said to them: derive it from "and it and its substitute". And when did they see the Rabbis derive it from "an animal for an animal"?

He said to them: from there too we can learn my reason.

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may exchange and then re-exchange (memirin ve-chozrin ve-memirin).^[13]

What is the reason? Where does the first sanctity of the consecrated animal go?^[14]

מאי טעמא דקדושה ראשונה דהקדש ראשון להיכן הלכה - So that it should not again hold another in its sanctity, even up to a thousand. Another version: "At first Rabbi Shimon said to them, derive it from 'and it and its substitute'; and when did they see the Rabbis derive it from 'an animal for an animal'?" He said to them: from there too we can learn my reason. And Reish Lakish said this on his own account, not to answer that objection.

Rabbi Yochanan said: just as one may not exchange two for one, so one may not exchange and re-exchange.^[15]

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan.

It was taught in accordance with Reish Lakish.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan: just as one may not exchange one for two, so one may not exchange and re-exchange.

It was taught in accordance with Reish Lakish: one might think that just as Rabbi Shimon says one may not exchange two for one, so one may not exchange and re-exchange.

The verse says: "and it and its substitute", even for a hundred.

Rabbi Abin asked: according to the one who says one may not exchange and re-exchange, if one set aside a guilt-offering in order to atone with it and exchanged it [for another]...^[16]

Tosafot

שנאמר לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב - Good consecrated for bad common, or bad consecrated for good common. This is the first principle: it is consecrated.

איזהו טוב ברע בעלי מומין שקדם הקדישן למומן - "Which is the bad for good, a blemished animal whose consecration preceded its blemish": this is the reverse of the others, for here the one that is seized (by the substitute) is the one that was blemished.

לאביי חד בטוב אייתורי מייתר - "For Abaye, one 'good' is superfluous": For Rava, both should have been written as "bad for bad". The Gemara's inference from Bechorot (14) is difficult: it says "now, bad consecrated for good common, you say not; good consecrated for bad common, is that in question", implying that "good for bad" is superfluous to exclude a blemish that preceded the consecration, which does not take effect as a substitute; and this is neither like Abaye nor like Rava. And further it is difficult: why is "good for bad" a question, when it was needed to say that bad common for good consecrated is seized? One may answer: there the Gemara means the verse should have written "bad for good or good for bad", and asks why "good for bad" is superfluous; it does not mean the verse should be silent about "good for bad" but only about "good" alone. This is like Abaye.

והא טעמא דרבי שמעון משום הוא הוי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מודה רבי שמעון דממירין וחוזרין וממירין - "And the reason of Rabbi Shimon, because of 'hu'": Rashi explains in the first answer that it is a resolution, and therefore the verse says "an animal for an animal". This is forced: according to Rabbi Shimon's words it implies one animal, and how can one derive from it that one may exchange and re-exchange? Rashi's other reading: he read "at first Rabbi Shimon said to them, from 'and it and its substitute'"; and Reish Lakish's statement was his own, not an answer to this difficulty.

Notes

1. 1. Firstborn (bechorot) animals of cattle and sheep were given to the priests, which is why the owner fears they will not give him their firstborn.
2. 2. Tamura (exchange): a consecrated animal may be swapped for another, and the substitute takes its holiness in place of the first.
3. 3. Blemished animals (ba'alei mumin) are not fit to be offered on the altar; the rule here concerns only their exchange.
4. 4. Vayikra 27:10, 'an animal for an animal': the source from which the Sages derive the exchange rules.
5. 5. Even good for good: by Rava's view, one who exchanges good for good is also flogged.
6. 6. A blemish already present at the consecration: the animal does not make a substitute.
7. 7. Kal vachomer: an inference from the lesser case to the greater.
8. 8. Punishment cannot be imposed by inference alone; it needs an explicit verse.
9. 9. Chilufin: a swap between two owners, one animal leaving and another entering.
10. 10. The Mishnah permits one for two and two for one; R. Shimon disagrees.
11. 11. Yonah 4:11: 'and much cattle' - the word behemah is also used of many animals.
12. 12. 'Hu' (it): the verse stresses that the original animal is unique, so its substitute is unique too.
13. 13. Reish Lakish: R. Shimon concedes that one may exchange and re-exchange.
14. 14. The first sanctity: once the substitute takes holiness, the first sanctity passes to it.
15. 15. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael (general knowledge) who disagree on exchange and re-exchange.
16. 16. R. Abin is an Amora of Eretz Yisrael (general knowledge); his question is incomplete in our text.