009b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ט ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

If it became blemished^[1] and was desecrated on another, and it was atoned for with a different guilt-offering^[2], and this one was released for a burnt-offering, what is the law: may one substitute with it?^[3]

והומם - The first one.

וחיללו על אחר ונתכפר באשם אחר - After this second guilt-offering, on which the first one was desecrated, was lost and atoned for with another, and afterwards this one was found.

וניתק לעולה - That the guilt-offering whose owner atoned with another is left undetermined, for the purpose of the communal freewill burnt-offering^[4], that is, from the surplus; as in the Midrash of Yehoyada HaKohen, in the chapter 'Ve-led Chatat' (below, 23).

מהו שימירו בו - Do we say: since it came from the earlier one, one may not substitute with it, because it was substituted with the first one? Or perhaps, since it is a different body and a different sanctity: when it was substituted with the earlier one it was an asham, and this one is a burnt-offering, therefore one may substitute with it.

Abaye said: What is it that they are asking?

If it is two bodies and one sanctity, he should have asked it without the words 'and it was atoned for'.

אי שני גופין וקדושה אחת מיבעיא ליה - Do we say: since it is a different body it could be substituted; or perhaps, since it is one sanctity, it cannot be substituted?

אי הכי מיבעיא ליה תיבעי ליה בלא נתכפר - Then he should have asked it without 'it was atoned for'. The Gemara should have said: he set aside a guilt-offering to atone with it, and substituted with it, and the first one became blemished, and he desecrated it on another. What is the law: may one substitute with this other one, since it is a different body? Or perhaps, since it came from the earlier one and it is one sanctity, the earlier one being an asham and this one too an asham, it cannot be substituted? Then why say 'atoned for with another'?

If it is two sanctities and one body, he should have asked it without the words 'it became blemished'.

ואי ב' קדושות וגוף אחד - Then he should have asked it without 'it became blemished'. The Gemara should have said: he set aside a guilt-offering, substituted with it, and the first one was lost, and it was atoned for with another guilt-offering that he set aside from his flock; and the first one was found and released for a burnt-offering. That is one body and two sanctities. What is the law? Do we say, since it is one body...? He is in doubt, and therefore he wonders why [the Gemara] teaches both cases.

And Rabbi Avin^[5] asked it as one question drawn from the other.

חדא מגו חדא - That is, if you should say [the Gemara] says 'one question', then it says: he set aside a guilt-offering, substituted with it, it became blemished, and he desecrated it; this body is the second, and one sanctity: what is the law?

And if you say that it is two bodies and one sanctity: no, because about that sanctity it was already stated once.

ואם תימצי לומר הכא כיון דקדושה אחת היא אינו מימר - (Because about that sanctity) it was stated, and it is not stated about it a second time.

Two bodies and two sanctities: what is the law?

שני גופין ושתי קדושות מהו - For example: this second one was lost and atoned for with another, and the second was released for a burnt-offering when it was found. What is the law? Since now it is the second, and a different sanctity, may one substitute with it? Or perhaps in the end it came from the earlier one, and one may not substitute? The Yerushalmi^[6] reads it another way, and asks two [questions]: he set aside a guilt-offering, substituted with it, it became blemished and was desecrated on another; may he substitute with it? That is two bodies and one sanctity, and he is in doubt as explained in the first version. Or, it was not blemished but atoned for with another, and this one was released for a burnt-offering when found, making two sanctities and one body: may he substitute with it? The explanation is as explained.

Undecided.^[7]

Another version: Rabbi Avin asked Rabbi Yochanan, who said: one does not substitute and then substitute again^[8].

If one set aside a guilt-offering to atone with it, and substituted with it, and it became blemished and was desecrated on another, what is the law: may it revert and be substituted again?

[If] it was atoned for with another guilt-offering, and this one was released for a burnt-offering, what is the law: may it revert and be substituted?

Abaye said: Which of them is it that they are asking?^[9]

אמר (ליה) אביי הדין קמיבעיא - Which of these was the main question: whether it is another sanctity in the same body, as explained. That is, one body and two sanctities: we need not ask about 'blemished and desecrated', and Rabbi Avin asked it as one question drawn from the other. And if you say he asks it, then in this version he need not ask about two bodies and two sanctities at all; rather, this is what he means: if one body in the same sanctity... And in this version, two bodies and one sanctity is considered more single than two sanctities and one body.

If it is another sanctity in the same body, we need not ask about 'it became blemished and was desecrated on another'; if it is one body in the same sanctity, we need not ask about 'it was atoned for with another guilt-offering'.

And Rabbi Avin asks it as one question drawn from the other.

Where it became blemished and was desecrated on another: what is the law, may it revert and be substituted? Is it that only with the first guilt-offering it does not revert and substitute, but with one body in the same sanctity, even though he consecrated that sanctity, it reverts and substitutes? Or perhaps for everything in the same sanctity it does not revert and substitute?

And if you say the case is one body: since it stands in the same sanctity, it does not revert and substitute. But if it was atoned for with another, and this first one was released for a burnt-offering, what is the law: may it revert and be substituted with it?

Is it said that 'it does not substitute, and it reverts and substitutes' applies only to the same body in the same sanctity; but the same body in another sanctity does revert and substitute? Or perhaps even in another sanctity, since it is the same body, it does not revert and substitute?

Undecided.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi^[10] said: The first sanctity adds a fifth^[11], and the second sanctity does not add a fifth.

ואין הקדש שני מוסיף חומש - This is the second sanctity: for example, the first one became blemished and was desecrated on another, and this other becomes a second sanctity. If it became blemished and was desecrated, it does not add a fifth on it; and substitution too is a second sanctity.

Rav Pappa^[12] said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

The verse says: 'If the one who consecrates redeems his house, he shall add a fifth'^[13] — that refers to one who consecrates, and not one who designates.^[14]

Rabbi Avin asked: If one set aside a guilt-offering to atone with it, and it became blemished and he added a fifth to it, and it was desecrated and then atoned for with another guilt-offering, and this one was released for a burnt-offering, what is the law: may he add a fifth to it?

הפריש אשם להתכפר בו כו' - As above, that these are two bodies and two sanctities. What is the law?

Abaye said: What is it that they are asking?

מאי קא מיבעיא ליה - To Rabbi Avin, who thought that Rabbi Avin's question was not about two bodies and two sanctities, but about two different matters, differing from the first: they were two bodies and one sanctity, and the other was atoned for with another. That is, the first one did not become blemished, but was lost and atoned for with another, and this one was found and released for a burnt-offering. That makes two sanctities and one body: what is the law? Therefore Abaye asks: of which of them is Rabbi Avin's question the main point? He should have asked it openly and let the other be learned from it.

If it is two bodies and one sanctity that they are asking about, ask it without 'it was atoned for'.

אי שני גופין וקדושה אחת קמיבעיא ליה תיבעי ליה בלא נתכפר - With another; but the first one became blemished and was desecrated, and he added a fifth on it. A fifth does not apply to altar-offerings without a blemish, since a whole animal does not go out to non-sacred use^[15], and the second one, which became blemished, what is the law? That is, do we say: since it is one sanctity, he does not add a second fifth; or perhaps, since they are two bodies, he adds a fifth on it? And Rabbi Yehoshua said: the second sanctity does not add a fifth on it, e.g., one designates a blemished animal for the Temple repair fund and it is desecrated on another blemished animal; that adds nothing. But here, when he designates a whole animal for a blemished one, this is the second sanctity: that first one is fit only for its value, and this one is fit for the altar, and it is a new sanctity.

If it is two sanctities and one body, ask it without 'it became blemished'.

אי שתי קדושות וגוף אחד מיבעיא ליה תיבעי ליה בלא הומם - Before it was lost; but it was lost, and he set aside another and atoned with it, and the first was found and released for a burnt-offering. What is the law? Do we say it is a second sanctity, since it was atoned for with another and this one is secondary to it? And if it became blemished and he came to desecrate it, he does not add a fifth on it.

And Rabbi Avin asked it as one question drawn from the other.

And if you say two bodies and one sanctity: no, because on that sanctity a fifth was already added once.

Two bodies and two sanctities: what is the law? Undecided.

Another version: Rabbi Avin asked: If one set aside a guilt-offering to atone with it, and it became blemished and he desecrated it on another and added a fifth, and it was atoned for with another guilt-offering, and this one was released for a burnt-offering, what is the law: may he add a fifth to it?

Abaye said: This is what they are asking.

If it is another sanctity in the same body that they are asking about,

we need not ask about 'it became blemished'; if it is one body in the same sanctity, [we need not ask about] 'and it was desecrated on another': what is the law, may he add a fifth to it?

Do we say: only the first guilt-offering adds a fifth, but with one body, even though it stands in the same sanctity, [he does not] add a fifth?

Tosfos

בעי רבי אבין לדברי האומר כו' - There are two versions in the books, and Rashi explained the second version of the Yerushalmi. The general principle: where it became blemished and was desecrated on another and atoned for with another guilt-offering, i.e., the first was lost and afterwards found and released for a burnt-offering, this is two bodies and two sanctities. Where it became blemished and was desecrated on another and was not atoned for with another guilt-offering, this is two bodies and one sanctity. Where it was not blemished but was atoned for with another guilt-offering, and this one was released for a burnt-offering when found, this is two sanctities and one body. According to the second version, 'and was atoned for with another guilt-offering' means: or, it was atoned for, and these are two questions. And so regarding adding a fifth, there are two versions, as here.

Notes

1. 1. Blemished (והומם): the animal acquired a blemish, which disqualifies it from being offered on the altar.
2. 2. A guilt-offering (asham) is brought for a trespass involving sacred property or for a doubtful sin; its flesh is eaten by the priests.
3. 3. Substitution (temurah): an animal consecrated for a sacrifice that is exchanged for another; the substitute also becomes sacred. The question is whether a guilt-offering that was released as a burnt-offering can be the basis of such an exchange.
4. 4. A communal freewill burnt-offering (olat nedavat tzibur): a burnt-offering brought by the community from donated funds, wholly burnt on the altar.
5. 5. R' Avin: a Palestinian Amora who brings his question to R' Yochanan.
6. 6. Yerushalmi: the Jerusalem Talmud, compiled in the Land of Israel.
7. 7. Teiku: the question is left unresolved.
8. 8. Quoted back: R' Yochanan's ruling that a substitute cannot be substituted again. The question is whether this rule applies to the case before us.
9. 9. Abaye: a Babylonian Amora of the fourth generation.
10. 10. R' Yehoshua ben Levi: a Palestinian Amora of the third generation; his ruling is quoted back below.
11. 11. Adding a fifth: one who redeems consecrated property pays an extra fifth of its value (Vayikra 27:13, 15). A second consecration of the same item does not carry this addition.
12. 12. Rav Pappa: a Babylonian Amora.
13. 13. Vayikra 27:15 deals with one who consecrates his house and then redeems it: he adds a fifth to its valuation.
14. 14. Mitpiss: one who designates property in advance, without the wording of a formal consecration. The Gemara explains that the verse speaks only of the consecrator.
15. 15. Chullin: non-sacred animals, which may be eaten anywhere; an unblemished sacrificial animal cannot go out to chullin.