013b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה יג ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

And an item that does not come in partnership

ודבר שאינו בשותפות - as I explained above: it will be yours, not of a partnership:

Rabbi says: why did the tithe^[1] come out now, to be judged as to its substitution of name and its substitution of body^[2]?

רבי אומר למה יצא מעשר מעתה - that Rabbi holds that for these cases it was not necessary to say them: an individual's sacrifice is learned from the singular wording "if a man"; and the sacrifice of the animal is learned from the word "sacrifice"; so Rabbi holds that the sacred property of the Temple is not called a sacrifice; and what R. Shimon excludes from "an item of obligation" is a burnt offering from surplus, since Rabbi holds that surplus goes to communal freewill offerings; and from the opening of the Mishnah we learn that there is no substitute in the community, and partnership too is excluded by the singular wording "if he will exchange":

לפי שיצא מעשר לידון בתמורת שמו - for if the tithe came out to be judged by substitution of name: it is written earlier, "and of every tithe", and we include "from all" to include: if he called the tenth ninth and the ninth tenth, or the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified, and that is substitution of name. Therefore it was necessary to write also "if he exchanges, he shall exchange it", to judge substitution of body: if he placed a domestic animal beside the tithe and said "this is like that", it is caught in substitution. For had it not been written I would say it does not make a substitute, as we say below, "an item that was included and came out to be judged by a new matter", namely the novelty of substitution of name, which is not in all sacrifices, and I would say: you have from it only its novelty, substitution of name, but not substitution of body. So the verse returned: it came out to be judged by substitution of name and of body.

Rather, it teaches you: a substitute by name is sacrificed

תמורת שמו קריבה - as we say at the end of Bekhorot (61): the cattle includes an eleventh for peace-offerings^[3]:

a substitute by body is not sacrificed

תמורת גופו אינה קריבה - as we say in the earlier chapter (5a): a gezerah shavah from the firstling, where for the firstling it is written "they, they are sacrificed, and their substitutes are not sacrificed":

a substitute by name is redeemed

תמורת שמו נגאלת - for it is a peace-offering, and peace-offerings are redeemed when a blemish falls on them:

a substitute by body is not redeemed

תמורת גופו אינה נגאלת - as written: "he and his substitute shall be holy, it shall not be redeemed":

a substitute by body takes effect on a fit item and on an unfit item

תמורת גופו חלה אע"פ שאינו ראוי - such as one with a blemish^[4]. What is the reason? Like tithe, which takes effect on a blemished animal; and the practical difference is that he eats it with the sanctity of tithe, so it is not slaughtered at the butcher and not weighed on a scale:

but a substitute by name takes effect only on a fit item

תמורת שמו אינה חלה אלא על דבר הראוי - to be sanctified with full sanctity like other sacrifices, which do not take effect when their blemish came before they were consecrated:

They said: since the Merciful One included a substitute by name, it was diminished, so to speak, and is diminished^[5]

וקפריך משום דרבי ביה רחמנא דעביד תמורת שמו איגרועי מיגרעא - and he objects: because the Merciful One made substitution of name diminish, it does not take effect on a blemished one. All the more so one should go further in stringency, since it is so stringent that it is present in substitution of name:

No, if we say that what the verse includes it includes and what it does not include it does not include^[6]; but from where would this come?

מאי דרבי רבי - and Scripture included only what is fit for peace-offerings, as it teaches: "the cattle includes eleven for peace-offerings":

מהיכא תיתי - that we say so:

Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: because this is an item that comes to be judged by a new matter^[7], and it contains nothing but its novelty alone

דבר החדש - substitution of name:

ומשני אין דאי לא כתב ביה אמרינן למאי דרבי רבי כו' - and the answer: if it were not written, we would say that what Scripture included is to be judged by a new matter, namely substitution of name, and you have from it only its novelty; therefore it was necessary to include. The essence is that in the earlier version there are two objections: first, what does "to what Rabbi includes" mean; this is not a correct way to establish it, since substitution of name, which Scripture included from "all tithe, cattle and sheep", is understood only in general, whether unblemished or blemished, and what Rabbi includes from "the cattle" is for sacrifice, lest one judge it by substitution of body. Second, he objects "from where would this come", which is not the Talmud's language; it should have said "from where do you know that we say so". But in this version it reads well: "from where does this come to me, that I should say so", that Scripture needed to include it:

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said to Rava: according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that an item brought as an obligation is an obligatory burnt offering^[8] that makes a substitute, so a freewill burnt offering does not

He said to him: a freewill burnt offering too, since he took it upon himself, makes a substitute; and it was needed only for a burnt offering brought from the surplus^[9]

דקיבלה עליה - that he will sacrifice it, even though he said "this one is":

מותרות - such as a guilt offering released to graze, whose value is sacrificed as a burnt offering; and such as one who set aside money for his sin-offering and guilt-offering and there was a surplus, he brings a burnt offering with that money. This is the exposition of Yehoyada the priest: "everything that comes from the surplus of a sin-offering and from the surplus of a guilt-offering shall be bought with them burnt offerings of flesh, and the hides to the priests"; in the chapter "Ulad Chatat" (below, 23a):

What does he hold? If he holds like the one who says that surplus goes to communal freewill offerings^[10]

לנדבת צבור אזלי - for shofarot:

Obviously it does not make a substitute; for there is no substitute in communal property

Rather, Rabbi Shimon holds like the one who says that surplus goes to an individual's freewill offering^[11]

לנדבת יחיד - the owners themselves bring a burnt offering with the money, and it is not a burnt offering as an obligation for them, but it is a gift:

From whom did you hear this view? From Rabbi Eliezer; for we have heard him explicitly say that it makes a substitute

רבי אליעזר - who holds that surplus goes to individual freewill offerings; in the chapter "Eilu Kodashim" (below, 20a): substitute of a substitute, its offspring is offspring, and its offspring's offspring, until the end of the world; "they graze until they become blemished, and are sold, and their money falls to freewill for shofarot"; Rabbi Eliezer says he brings a burnt offering with its money:

as it was taught: a burnt offering brought from the surplus makes a substitute^[12], these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer

Rabbi Shimon agrees with him on one point and disagrees with him on one point

סבר לה כוותיה בחדא - for surplus goes to individual freewill offerings; that is why it was necessary to exclude it from substitution:

For Rabbi Eliezer holds that a burnt offering brought from the surplus makes a substitute, and he (Rabbi Shimon) holds that it does not make a substitute

If so, that is what Rabbi Avin asked: one who set aside a guilt offering^[13] to atone with it, and exchanged it, and was atoned with a different guilt offering, and this one was released for a burnt offering

אי הכי - for according to R. Shimon, a burnt offering from surplus did not make a substitute, and even if he had not exchanged it from the start, he cannot exchange it now, since it is a burnt offering from surplus:

וחללו על אחרת - or: it was atoned with another guilt offering, etc., as I explained above in this chapter:

Does he return and exchange it?

מהו שיחזור וימיר - where R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon: one may not exchange, return and exchange, while it still has its sanctity; but in a case of another sanctity, say that he exchanges it, or perhaps not?

According to whose view? If you say, according to Rabbi Shimon

אי אליבא דרבי שמעון ממעשר ילפינן - that is: R. Shimon derived from tithe an obligatory item, to exclude a burnt offering from surplus, which does not make a substitute:

Surely you said that Rabbi Shimon holds that a burnt offering brought from the surplus does not make a substitute

Rabbi Avin asked it this way: can one find a Tanna who holds like Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may not exchange, return and exchange again^[14], and holds like Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a burnt offering brought from the surplus makes a substitute

אי משכחת תנא - who holds like Rabbi Eliezer and like R. Yochanan, who said above in the name of R. Shimon: one may not exchange, return and exchange, etc.:

Does he return and exchange it, in the case of two bodies and one sanctity, what is the law?

בשני גופין וקדושה אחת מאי - that is: he set aside a guilt offering to atone with it, and exchanged it, and it was lost (hummam) and was desecrated on another:

And if you find it said: one sanctity

But two sanctities and one body, what? The question stands^[15]

אלא שתי קדושות וגוף אחד - that is: he was atoned with another guilt offering, and the first, which was lost, was found and set aside for a burnt offering:

תיבעי - a Jerusalem Talmud term, like "teiku" in the language of the Bavli:

תוספות

רבי אומר למה יצא מעשר - Rabbi holds that for an individual's sacrifice, and to exclude community and partnership property, it was not necessary, since the whole passage on substitution is worded in the singular; to exclude sacred property of the Temple it was not necessary either, since they are not called sacrifices; and to exclude a burnt offering from surplus it was not necessary either, because he holds that surplus goes to communal freewill offerings, and obviously they do not make a substitute. So Rashi explains. Another explanation: he holds that surplus goes to individual freewill offerings and holds like R. Eliezer, who says it makes a substitute:

לדון בתמורת גופו - we would have thought that they do not make a substitute at all, since it came to be judged by a new matter, as the Gemara explains; or [it means] to judge by the substitution of body, to teach that it takes effect on an unfit item; Rashi explains both:

תמורת שמו - that is, if one called the tenth ninth, and the ninth tenth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified, as we hold (Bekhorot 60):

Notes

1. 1. Animal tithe: every tenth animal of the herd and flock; it becomes holy and is offered as a peace-offering.
2. 2. Substitution of name: a switch made only by naming, e.g. calling the tenth animal the ninth. Substitution of body: a switch made with the animal itself, e.g. placing a domestic animal beside the tithe and saying "this is like that."
3. 3. Peace-offering: a sacrifice whose fats are burned on the altar and whose meat is eaten by its owners; if it develops a blemish it may be redeemed for money.
4. 4. A blemished animal: one with a defect, unfit to be offered on the altar.
5. 5. The Gemara says the verse narrowed the law of substitution of name, so it does not take effect on a blemished animal.
6. 6. Ribui (inclusion): an exegetical reading that widens a verse to cover a case not stated outright. Here the verse includes only what is fit for peace-offerings.
7. 7. Something that comes to be judged by a new matter is learned only for its novelty; here, the novelty of substitution of name.
8. 8. Rav Nachman quotes R. Shimon: a burnt offering brought as an obligation makes a substitute, so a freewill burnt offering would not; the objection follows from this.
9. 9. Surplus (motarot): money or animals left over from a sin- or guilt-offering; a burnt offering is brought from them.
10. 10. Communal freewill offering: donated by the community for its needs, such as shofarot; the Gemara holds that no substitute applies to it.
11. 11. Individual freewill offering: an individual brings a burnt offering from it as a gift; it is not an obligation on him.
12. 12. The beraisa gives R. Eliezer's view: a burnt offering brought from surplus makes a substitute.
13. 13. Guilt-offering (asham): a sacrifice brought for a specific sin, such as misuse of sacred property or a doubtful sin; it atones.
14. 14. One may not substitute, return and substitute again: a rule that a substitute cannot be exchanged again while it keeps its sanctity.
15. 15. Teiku: the question is left unresolved; a Jerusalem Talmud term, used in the Bavli too.