017a יש בקרבנות פרק שני תמורה יז ע"א - YESH BEKORBONOS CHAPTER TWO TEMURAH

Regarding (the animal) to shear it and to work it: R' Yose b. R' Yehuda says: one who acts in error is treated as one who acts wilfully regarding tamurah, but not regarding sacred animals (kodashim).

ליגזז וליעבד - Like the law of sacred animals whose consecration came before their blemish: when redeemed, they have no permission for shearing and working, only permission to eat, as stated in Bechorot ch. 2 (14a)^[1]. Animals whose blemish came before the consecration go out to chullin by redemption and may be sheared and worked, as stated there. But for tamurah the verse reveals good for bad or bad for good; he did not distinguish between unblemished and blemished.

R' Elazar says: kilayim, a tereifah, a yotzei dofen, a tumtum and an androgynos^[2] are neither sanctified nor do they sanctify.

What is the reasoning of R' Yose b. R' Yehuda? The verse says it shall be holy^[3], to include one who errs as one who wilfully sins.

What is "one who errs as one who wilfully sins"?

Chizkiya said: [it refers to one] who thought it was permitted to substitute^[4]: for tamurah he is flogged; for kodashim he is not flogged.

גמ' גבי תמורה לקי - Because for R' Yose the verse itself makes the unwitting [transgressor] like the wilful.

גבי קדשים לא לקי - Lashes are found only for the wilful, and after a warning.

[Another version: for tamurah it is holy; for kodashim it is not holy.]

בקדשים לא קדיש - If there is a blemished one for the altar, he is not flogged, since it is not sanctified: a sanctification in error is not a sanctification.

Resh Lakish and R' Yochanan say: [the case is one] who thought to say "a tamurat olah" and said "a tamurat shelamim": for tamurat shelamim it is holy; for kodashim it is not holy.

[Alternatively: one who thought to say "black" and said "white": for tamurah he is flogged; for kodashim he is not flogged.]

כסבור לומר שור שחור - He thought: the black ox that came out of my house first will be the tamurah in place of this one; and he said "white ox" with his mouth. For tamurah it is holy and he is flogged, since the verse reveals it.

R' Yochanan says: [the case is one] who said "this one out and that one in": for kodashim that developed a blemish, which are eaten without redemption^[5], he is not flogged; for tamurah he is flogged.

תצא זו ותיכנס זו - And that one, the unblemished consecrated animal, does not go out to chullin; it holds this one in its sanctity, and it becomes a tamurah. He thought this one would go out to chullin as a blemished one, and did not intend to substitute; still he is flogged. For kodashim too, as in this case: he knew kodashim are forbidden to outsiders, but thought that where a blemish fell on them they are eaten without redemption. This is like the one who knew tamurah is forbidden but in such a case thought it permitted.

גבי קדשים - If it has a blemish and is for the altar, he is not flogged, since it is not sanctified: a sanctification in error is not a sanctification.

Rav Sheshet says: [the case is one] who said "I will enter this house and sanctify, and I will substitute by my own mind," and he entered, substituted and sanctified not by his intention: for tamurah he is flogged; for kodashim he is not flogged.

ונכנס והקדיש והמיר שלא מדעתו - That he was a man of scattered thoughts and did not know what he would say. For tamurah it is holy and he is flogged, since the verse reveals that the unwitting is as the wilful.

R' Elazar says: kilayim, and a tereifah, and so on:

Shmuel said: they are not sanctified as tamurah, and they do not sanctify to make a tamurah.

לא קדושין בתמורה - Even though sanctity of the body takes effect on a permanent blemish through tamurah, it does not take effect on these; and certainly sanctity of the body does not take effect on them through a sanctification by mouth, only sanctity of value, like wood and stones, and they need no blemish for redemption.

ולא מקדישין אחרים בתמורה - If they were sanctified: R' Meir explains how they can be sanctified, since one must say that they do not sanctify.

It was taught in a beraisa: R' Meir said: and since they are not sanctified, from where do they sanctify? Rather, you find it only in one who consecrates an animal and afterwards it became a tereifah, or in one who consecrates an offspring that went out through the side.

במקדיש בהמה - Because sanctity took hold of it.

ואח"כ נטרפה - Even though it is holy, here he needed to say that although it is holy it does not make a tamurah. But kilayim, tumtum and androgynos were spoiled from their creation and do not have that sanctity.

But kilayim, tumtum and androgynos, you find them only as offspring of sacred animals, and this is according to R' Yehuda, who says the offspring makes a tamurah.

אלא בוולדי קדשים - That the mother was consecrated before she conceived, so the offspring are holy automatically, since a fetus is part of its mother's body. Here he needed to say that they do not make a tamurah.

ואליבא דר' יהודה - Who says the offspring of sacred animals makes a tamurah. He needed to teach about those that do not make a tamurah and do not receive sanctity of the body even through tamurah. The earlier ones are not defective from the start: we established the case of one who consecrated an animal and it later became a tereifah; kilayim, tumtum and androgynos are holy only as offspring, consecrated with the mother before their creation.

Rav Pappa said: what is R' Eliezer's reasoning?

Just as an unclean animal is not brought [on the altar] and does not receive the sanctity of the body^[6], so these are not brought and do not receive the sanctity of the body.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: but a blemished animal^[7] is not brought [on the altar], and yet sanctity of the body takes effect on it?

והרי בעל מום דלא קרב ונחתא ליה קדושת הגוף - Through tamurah, as our Mishnah teaches, tamurah takes hold. If he consecrated it before its blemish, it makes a tamurah, as it says good for bad; and this animal too, if it was consecrated before it became a tereifah, makes a tamurah. If it became a tereifah while still chullin, [the tamurah] takes hold in it.

He said to him: a blemished animal is brought of its own kind^[8].

קרב במינו - Other unblemished animals. But all these five are not brought of their kind: a yotzei dofen is not considered a kind of other animals, since people find it strange.

[Rav Pappa:] If so, a tereifah too is brought of its own kind!

Rather, Rava said: as with an unclean animal, [its disqualification is] a bodily defect^[9] (psul haguf); so every bodily defect [is excluded], to exclude a blemish, which is a mere deficiency.

פסול הגוף - All these bodily defects are without deficiency, such as a perforated membrane of the brain or a perforated stomach; but a blemish is a deficiency only.

Rav Adda said to Rava: but it is written in the passage shero'a and kalut^[10], and these are bodily defects!

והלא שרוע וקלוט - As written in the passage about blemished animals, and these are bodily defects without deficiency; yet even so it makes a tamurah, as it says good for bad. So Rabbi explained.

Rather, Rava said: as with an unclean animal, which has none of its kind, so every [animal] with none of its kind [is excluded], to exclude a blemished animal, since it does have one of its kind.

What do you mean? A tereifah does have one of its kind too?

מאי אמרת טרפה איכא נמי במינה - It is not comparable to a blemished animal: an unclean animal is forbidden to eat and a tereifah is forbidden to eat, but a blemished animal is permitted to eat. That is: if a tereifah is not comparable to an unclean animal in having one of its kind (brought), it is comparable to it in another respect: both are forbidden to eat.

It is not comparable to a blemished animal: an unclean animal is forbidden to eat, and a tereifah is forbidden to eat, but a blemished animal is permitted to eat.

Shmuel said: one who consecrates a tereifah needs a permanent blemish^[11] in order to redeem it.

צריכה מום קבוע כו' - Since Shmuel holds that sanctity of the body takes effect on it.

Conclude from this that one redeems sacred animals in order to feed them to dogs?

שמע מינה כו' - And we hold (below, 31a) that one does not redeem sacred animals in order to feed them to dogs, only for death.

Rather, say: it makes a sanctity "for death."

R' Oshaya says: it is only like one who consecrates wood and stones^[12].

כמקדיש עצים - (And sulfur) and they are redeemed to be eaten by dogs, since they are not called sacred.

The Mishnah taught: all sacred animals that became a tereifah are not redeemed, since one does not redeem sacred animals in order to feed them to dogs^[13].

The reason is "that they became" [a tereifah]; [this implies] that had they been so from the start, one would redeem them.

Perhaps this Tanna holds: whenever [an animal] is not fit for its own body, sanctity of the body does not take effect on it.

Come and hear: R' Elazar says: kilayim, and a yotzei dofen, and a tereifah, and a tumtum and an androgynos are neither sanctified nor do they sanctify^[14].

And Shmuel said: they are not sanctified as tamurah and do not sanctify to make a tamurah^[15].

And it was taught: R' Meir said: and since they are not sanctified, from where do they sanctify? Rather, you find it only in one who consecrates an animal and afterwards it became a tereifah.

[This shows that] had it been a tereifah from the start, sanctity of the body would not take effect on it.

Tosafot

גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי - Some texts read "for tamurah it is holy" and so on. On the first reading, lashes for tamurah apply because the verse makes the unwitting one as the wilful. Rabbeinu Baruch and Rabbeinu Shimon of Shantz disputed at length whether there are lashes for an unwitting tamurah; the texts differ here, and I explained this at the start of this chapter. Below, for "kodashim with a blemish eaten without redemption", one cannot read "for kodashim it is holy", since it was holy from the start; the reading is therefore "for tamurah he is flogged; for kodashim he is not flogged."

אכנס לבית זה כו' הקדיש שלא מדעתו - Rashi says that he was absent-minded and did not know what he would say. It is hard to see why he needed to say "I will enter this house". It seems to explain it: "I will enter this house" means that when I enter this house, this animal becomes a tamurah at once, and that one becomes holy by my intention. He entered, substituted and sanctified without intention: he said nothing on entering and did not think about what he had said at first, so the tamurah and the sanctification both took effect unintentionally.

אי הכי טרפה נמי הא קרבה במינה - The objection is not raised against the rest: tumtum and androgynos are strange creatures, so it is as though they were not brought of their kind; likewise a yotzei dofen is a strange creature, and it is as though it was not brought of its kind; kilayim is a deformed creature, and it is as though it was not brought of its kind. So Rashi explains.

Notes

1. 1. Bechorot 14a: the contrast between a blemish that came before the consecration and one that came after it decides whether a redeemed animal may be sheared and worked.
2. 2. Five kinds of animal unfit for the altar: kilayim (an animal of two species); tereifah (an animal with a fatal defect); yotzei dofen (an animal born through a cut in its mother's side); tumtum (an animal whose sexual organs are concealed); androgynos (an animal with both). None receives sanctity of the body.
3. 3. The verse on tamurah (Vayikra 27:10): "and it and its tamurah shall be holy". R' Yose b. R' Yehuda learns from "shall be holy" that one who errs is treated as one who wilfully sins.
4. 4. Tamurah: substituting another animal for a consecrated one. The substitute also becomes holy, and both are sacred.
5. 5. Pidyon (redemption): a consecrated animal with a blemish may be redeemed; its owner pays its value plus a fifth to the Temple and the animal may then be eaten as chullin. The Gemara speaks of such animals eaten without this redemption.
6. 6. Sanctity of the body (kedushat haguf): the holiness that falls on the animal itself, making it fit for the altar. Sanctity of value (kedushat damim) applies only to money, as with wood and stones given to the Temple.
7. 7. A blemished animal (ba'al mum) has a physical blemish. It is not offered on the altar, but sanctity of the body does take effect on it and it can be redeemed.
8. 8. "Brought of its kind": a blemished animal belongs to the same species as unblemished ones, and so is considered brought of its own kind (see Rashi).
9. 9. A bodily defect (psul haguf) is a defect of the animal's body itself, such as a perforated membrane of the brain (Rashi), and it disqualifies the animal from the altar. A mere blemish (mum) is a lesser deficiency.
10. 10. Shero'a and kalut (Vayikra 22:23): an animal with a limb too long or too short. The verse lists them among the defects that disqualify an animal from being offered as a freewill offering.
11. 11. A permanent blemish (mum kavua) is one that will not heal. It is the condition for redeeming a consecrated animal; Shmuel holds that a consecrated tereifah needs one as well.
12. 12. Wood and stones consecrated to the Temple have only sanctity of value, not sanctity of the body, and they need no blemish to be redeemed.
13. 13. One redeems sacred animals so that people can eat them, not so that dogs can. A tereifah, which is not eaten by people, is therefore not redeemed. This is the clause the Gemara is discussing.
14. 14. The clause repeats the Mishnah's ruling, quoted back as R' Elazar's words and brought as a proof. In practice: these five animals are never sanctified, so they cannot be offered or substitute for another animal.
15. 15. Shmuel's words, quoted back: these animals do not become holy through tamurah, and they do not make a tamurah holy.