013a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה יג ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

Three fields and two furrows; and how much is a full furrow^[1]? A hundred cubits.

שלש שדות ושתי מענות - That field in which the grave was, and a field on this side and a field on that side. If the people of the valley plough their fields from east to west, it makes a bet hapras: that field to the east and that field to the west. If they plough north and south, the north and south field makes a bet hapras, since there the plough turned up the dust and bones of the bet hapras. But not in all four directions, since there is no way to plough both warp and woof. These two fields themselves are not entirely bet hapras; only the measure of two furrows is, a furrow for this one and a furrow for that one. But the field in which the grave was is entirely impure, since we do not know from which spot of it the grave came; so it makes a full furrow on every side: perhaps the grave was at one of its two ends and he went from there to the neighbouring field, which is a full furrow. This is the measure of ploughing a grave, for the Sages estimated that a full furrow is the distance the bones can roll by means of the plough.

As it was taught: One who ploughs over a grave makes a bet hapras^[2], and a full furrow is a hundred cubits.

And there is no terumah after terumah, etc.

Whose view is the Mishnah? It is R' Akiva's^[3].

As we learned: Partners who gave terumah one after the other: R' Eliezer says, the terumah of both of them is terumah,

תרומת שניהם תרומה - Since both of them have a share in it.

R' Akiva says: the terumah of both of them is not terumah,

אין תרומת שניהם תרומה - Even the first one's, since the second came back and set aside, it is shown that he did not want the first one's terumah, and so the first one set aside without consent, and likewise the second.

and the Sages say: if the first set aside terumah in the measure, the second's terumah is not terumah; and if the first did not set aside in the measure, the second's terumah is terumah.

כשיעור - One in fifty.

ואם לאו - For example, he set aside terumah with an evil eye, and the second's terumah is terumah. According to R' Akiva it is not terumah either way, and the Mishnah also states it without qualification; therefore it is R' Akiva's view.

And no temurah^[4] makes a temurah, etc.

What is the reason? The verse says: 'its exchange, and not the exchange of its exchange'.

And an offspring^[5] does not make a temurah:

As the verse says: 'it itself, and not its offspring'.

R' Yehuda says: an offspring does make a temurah:

As the verse says: 'it shall include the offspring'; and the Rabbis derive from it to include the one who erred as the one who acted deliberately.

לרבות שוגג כמזיד - And later, in chapter two (17a), it explains it: one who meant to exchange a black animal and exchanged a white one. For with consecrated animals it is not sanctified, since that consecration was a mistake; but with temurah it is sanctified.

Birds and meal-offerings do not make a temurah, as it is said only of an animal; a communal animal and the animal of partners do not make a temurah.

מתני' אלא בהמה - He may exchange an animal for an animal.

As it is said: 'He shall not exchange it or change it'. An individual's animal makes a temurah, and the animal of the community or of partners does not make a temurah.

Animals consecrated to the upkeep of the Temple (kodshei bedek habayit^[6]) do not make a temurah.

קדשי בד"ה אינן עושין תמורה - Because with temurah Scripture writes 'korban', and consecrated property of the Temple repair fund is not called korban, as the Gemara explains.

R' Shimon says: Behold, the tithe^[7] was included; why was it excluded? To tell you: just as the tithe is an individual's offering and an altar offering, so the Temple-repair property is excluded from communal offerings and from altar offerings.

אמר רבי שמעון כו' - Because R' Shimon holds that consecrated property of the Temple repair fund is called an offering, we cannot derive from here alone that they do not make temurah; it comes from elsewhere. Yet is the tithe of animals not included among all consecrated things, which do make temurah, as it is written: 'If he indeed exchange, he shall exchange'? Why was it excluded? Because it is written about the tithe itself, that it makes temurah: 'If he indeed exchange, he shall exchange'. Just as the tithe is an individual's offering that makes temurah, so every individual's offering makes temurah; communal offerings are excluded, since the tithe does not apply in partnership, as we say at the end of Bechorot (56a): 'It shall be yours, and not of partners'.

The Sages taught: Perhaps the consecrated property of the Temple repair fund should also make a temurah.

The verse teaches^[8]: 'an offering': this excludes consecrated property of the Temple repair fund, which is not called an offering, and not

גמ' קרבן - 'If any animal they bring from it, etc.' And it is written after it: 'He shall not exchange it'.

but it was taught: 'If an offering' (Vayikra 17), I would hear that even consecrated property of the Temple repair fund, which is called an offering, is included, as it says (Bemidbar 31): 'and we shall bring the offering of the LORD', etc.

אי קרבן שומע אני כו' - This refers to slaughter outside. This 'if' is the language of the Sifra, as we say in many places: 'or is it not, etc.' Regarding slaughter outside, which we derived above from this matter, this 'offering' is for a different derivation: it is taught that one is liable for karet for an offering outside, but not for non-sacred animals inside. Therefore it teaches 'if an offering', meaning: if we derive this 'offering', it implies even Temple-repair property, etc. And some say it is because it is written there 'or who slaughters', but this is not the point.

קדשי בדק הבית - Though they are blemished and not fit for the Tent of Meeting, still they are called an offering.

The verse teaches: 'and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting'. One who brings all that comes to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is liable for slaughter outside^[9]; one who does not bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is not liable for slaughter outside. So it is evident that they are called an offering.

R' Chanina said: There is no difficulty: this (teaching) is R' Shimon's, and that is the Rabbis'.

According to R' Shimon they are called an offering; according to the Rabbis they are not called an offering, and not

לר"ש - According to R' Shimon, who is the view of the Mishnah: they are called an offering; therefore he excludes them from the analogy to the animal tithe, and not from 'offering'.

and is it not written: 'and we shall bring the offering of the LORD^[10]'? The offering of the LORD is called an offering, but 'to the LORD' is not called an offering.

קרבן לה' לא איקרי - Because that would mean 'offering' in general, but now it does not mean 'offering' in general.

The Sages taught: 'He shall not inspect^[11] between good and bad, and he shall not exchange it'. Why is it said?

ה"ג ת"ר לא יבקר כו' - Some do not read it so: 'this is R' and this is R' Shimon; according to R' Shimon they are called offerings, according to R' they are not called offerings.' For this version we explain that the Mishnah has no dispute at all; all of it is R' Shimon's, and what it teaches, that consecrated property of the Temple repair fund does not make temurah, is not derived from 'offering'; rather R' Shimon states it and then explains the reason. Therefore one cannot say 'this is R' Shimon and that is the Rabbis'. This is how we read this version: What is R' and what is R' Shimon? As it was taught: 'He shall not inspect between good and bad, etc.'

למה נאמר - This verse is about the tithe; but surely it is already said: 'He shall not exchange it, etc.', which implies that all consecrated things make temurah and the tithe is included.

But is it not already said: 'He shall not exchange it or change it, the good for the bad,' etc.?

Because it is said: 'He shall not exchange it or change it', this implies: an individual's offering, a communal offering, an altar offering and a Temple-repair offering. The verse teaches: 'he shall not inspect'.

וקרבנות בד"ה - And this baraita is all R' Shimon's, who holds that consecrated property of the Temple repair fund is called an offering, and R' Shimon explains the reason. Even according to the first version, it is certainly all R' Shimon's, since it teaches 'the verse teaches: he shall not inspect'; that is, the verse is written again about the tithe to draw all the other consecrated things to it, as R' Shimon said.

R' Shimon says: Behold, the tithe was included; why was it excluded? To tell you: just as the tithe is an individual's offering, an altar offering, and something that comes as an obligation^[12], and something that is not in partnership, so every individual's offering and altar offering and something that comes as an obligation.

ודבר שבחובה - It is explained below: to exclude what?

תוספות

שלש שדות של שתי מענות - The Sages say: 'three fields of two furrows'. Rashi: that field in which there was a grave, and a field on this side and a field on that side. If the people of the valley plough their fields from east to west, it makes a bet hapras: the field to the east and the field to the west. If they plough north and south, the field to the north and to the south make a bet hapras. Rashi's reasoning works for the Sages, but what Rashi says for R' Eliezer does not seem right to me: he explains that all four fields around the bet hapras are bet hapras, and the dust conveys impurity. Why? If they plough from east to west, why should north and south become impure, and if from north to south, why should east and west? Therefore it seems right to explain: R' Eliezer says a bet hapras makes a bet hapras; whatever is ploughed from a bet hapras into a neighbouring field makes that field a bet hapras, and likewise from the second field to the third, from the third to the fourth; so all of them make one another bet hapras.

מתני' ר"ע היא דתנן השותפין שתרמו זה אחר זה ר' אליעזר אומר תרומת שניהם תרומה - The Mishnah is R' Akiva's, as we learned: partners who gave terumah one after the other; R' Eliezer says the terumah of both of them is terumah, since both have a share in it. And the reason the Mishnah excludes 'from you' (plural) and not 'partners' is with regard to the matter that all of their terumah is not terumah; but part of this one's terumah and part of that one's is terumah.

רבי עקיבא אומר אין תרומת שניהם תרומה - R' Akiva says the terumah of both is not terumah. Rashi explains: even the first one's, since the second came back and set aside, it is shown that he did not want the first one's terumah, so the first one set aside without consent, and likewise the second. This is not like 'and temurah is not temurah after temurah', where the first is temurah and the second is not temurah; so it seems right to explain: here the first is terumah and the second is not. And it is difficult: in the third chapter of Terumot we learn that partners who set aside, R' Akiva says the terumah of both is terumah, and the Sages say: if the first set aside in the measure, etc., so R' Akiva would be contradicting R' Akiva. It seems to R' Y. that here it is when they gave each other permission to set aside: the first one's terumah is terumah according to R' Akiva, since he set aside with his fellow's permission, and the second is nothing, since he had given his fellow permission and the fellow already set aside. R' Eliezer holds that the terumah of both is terumah because they reveal their minds, each not being content with the other's terumah; but there, where they did not give each other permission to set aside, each set aside his own share in his own mind; therefore the terumah of both is partly terumah.

Notes

1. 1. A ma'aneh is one run of the plough across a field before it turns. Rashi explains that the bones of a grave can roll along with the plough over that distance; the Gemara measures the bet hapras by it.
2. 2. A bet hapras is a field in which a grave was ploughed and its bones scattered. Such a field conveys impurity like a corpse, within the measure given. General background, not stated on the page.
3. 3. The Gemara identifies the anonymous Mishnah as R' Akiva's view, the Mishnah of Terumot chapter 3 (as Tosfos also states). R' Eliezer and the Sages dispute him.
4. 4. Temurah: exchanging a consecrated animal for another, so that both become sacred (Vayikra 27:10). General background, not stated on the page.
5. 5. An offspring (ולד) is the young born after a consecrated animal. The Mishnah says an offspring does not make a temurah; R' Yehuda disagrees.
6. 6. Kodshei bedek habayit: property dedicated to the upkeep and repair of the Temple, which is not offered as an individual's or a communal offering. General background, not stated on the page.
7. 7. Ma'aser behema: the tenth animal of the herd, which is holy and offered. The Gemara uses it as the model of a sacred object that is brought within the analogy of temurah.
8. 8. Talmud lomar: 'the Torah teaches'. The verse is needed to teach a law that does not follow from the preceding verse.
9. 9. Shechutei chutz: slaughtering a sacrifice outside the Tent of Meeting; one who does so is liable to karet (Vayikra 17). General background, not stated on the page.
10. 10. Bemidbar 31:50: the gold brought from the war against Midian is called 'an offering of the LORD'. General background, not stated on the page.
11. 11. Vayikra 27:33: concerning the tithe of animals, one may not inspect the herd to choose the good from the bad, nor exchange an animal.
12. 12. Korban chova: an obligatory offering a person must bring, such as the festival chagigah; distinct from a voluntary offering or a vowed one.