Temurah — Daf 17a

לגזוז וליעבד ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה ולא עשה שוגג כמזיד במוקדשין

ר' אלעזר אומר הכלאי' והטרפה והיוצא דופן וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין

גמ׳ מ"ט דר' יוסי בר' יהודה אמר קרא יהיה קודש לרבות שוגג כמזיד

ה"ד שוגג כמזיד אמר חזקיה כסבור שהוא מותר להמיר גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשי' לא לקי

לישנא אחרינא גבי תמורה קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש

ר"ל ור' יוחנן אמרי כסבור לומר תמורת עולה ואמר תמורת שלמים לישנא אחרינא גבי תמורת שלמים קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש

ל"א כסבור לומר שחור ואמר לבן גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי

ר' יוחנן אמר באומר תצא זו ותיכנס זו גבי קדשים (באומר) שנולד בהם מום נאכלין בלא פדיון לא לקי גבי תמורה לקי

רב ששת אמר באומר אכנס לבית זה ואקדיש ואמיר מדעתי ונכנס והמיר והקדיש שלא מדעתו גבי תמורה לקי גבי קדשים לא לקי

ר"א אומר הכלאים והטרפה וכו' אמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין לעשות תמורה

תניא אמר ר' מאיר ומאחר שאין קדושין מהיכן מקדישין אלא אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואח"כ נטרפה במקדיש ולד ויצא [דרך] דופן אבל כלאים וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס אי אתה מוצא אלא בולדי קדשים ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר הולד עושה תמורה

אמר רב פפא מ"ט דר' אליעזר כבהמה טמאה מה בהמה טמאה לא קרבה ולא נחתא לה קדושת הגוף אף הנך לא קרבי ולא נחתא להו קדושת הגוף

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והרי בעל מום דלא קריב ונחתא ליה קדושת הגוף א"ל בעל מום קרב במינו א"ה טרפה נמי קא קרבה במינה

אלא אמר רבא כבהמה טמאה מה בהמה טמאה פסול הגוף אף כל פסול הגוף לאפוקי בעל מום דפסול חסרון נינהו

א"ל רב אדא לרבא והלא (ויקרא כב, כג) שרוע וקלוט כתיב בפרשה והא הני פסול הגוף נינהו

אלא אמר רבא כבהמה [טמאה] מה בהמה טמאה דליכא במינה אף כל דליכא במינה לאפוקי בעל מום דהא איכא במינה

מאי אמרת טרפה איכא במינה לא דמיא לבעל מום בהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה וטרפה אסורה באכילה לאפוקי בעל מום דמותר באכילה

אמר שמואל המקדיש את הטריפה צריכה מום קבוע לפדות עליו ש"מ פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

אלא אימא עושה קדושה (למיתה כסבור מותר להקדיש בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח גבי תמורה קדיש גבי קדשים לא קדיש) למות ור' אושעיא אומר אינה אלא כמקדיש עצים ואבנים בלבד

תנן כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין אותן לפי שאין פודין הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים טעמא שנעשו הא היו מעיקרא פודין אותן דלמא האי תנא סבר כל היכא דלא חזי לגופה לא נחתא לה קדושת הגוף

תא שמע רבי אלעזר אומר הכלאים ויוצא דופן וטריפה וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדישין ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדישין לעשות תמורה

ותניא אמר רבי מאיר וכי מאחר שאין קדושין מהיכן מקדישין אלא אי אתה מוצא אלא במקדיש בהמה ואח"כ נטרפה הא היתה טרפה מעיקרא לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף

SO AS TO BE SHEARED [OF ITS WOOL] AND WORKED.1 R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAYS: AN EXCHANGE IN ERROR IS PUT ON A LEVEL WITH AN INTENTIONAL [EXCHANGE], BUT A DEDICATION IN ERROR IS NOT PUT ON A LEVEL WITH AN INTENTIONAL [DEDICATION]. R. ELEAZAR2 SAYS: KIL'AYIM,3 TREFAH, A FOETUS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF A CESAREAN SECTION, A TUMTUM AND A HERMAPHRODITE, NEITHER BECOME SACRED NOR CAN THEY CAUSE DEDICATION. GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Jose son of R. Judah?4 Scripture says: Shall be holy,5 thus including the case of an exchange in error as on a level with an intentional [exchange]. How is [an exchange] in error being on a level with an intentional [exchange] to be understood? — Said Hezekiah: Where he has a [mistaken] opinion that it is permissible to exchange. Now in the case of exchange he is punishable [with lashes]6 whereas in the case of dedications he is not punishable [with lashes].7 Another version: In the case of exchange, the substitute is holy,8 whereas in the case of dedications, there is no holiness. R. Johanan9 says: Where he intended making an exchange with a burnt-offering and he made the exchange with a peace-offering,10 [or where he intended making an exchange with a peace-offering and he made the exchange with a burnt-offering].11 Now in the case of exchange the animal becomes holy, whereas in the case of dedications it is not holy. Another version:12 Where he intended saying a black [ox]13 and he said a white [ox]. In the case of exchange, he is punishable [with lashes],14 whereas in the case of dedications, he is not punishable [with lashes].15 Resh Lakish says:16 Where he thought17 that the one animal can be quit of holiness18 while the other [the exchanged animal] enters into holiness. Similarly with reference to dedications, where he thought that if a blemish shows itself in dedicated animals they are eaten without redemption.19 — Now in the case of exchange20 he is punishable [with lashes],21 whereas in the case of dedications he is not punishable [with lashes]. R. Shesheth says: Where he says, ‘I shall enter this house, dedicate and exchange with full knowledge [of what I am doing]’, and then he entered, exchanged and dedicated without knowing it.22 Now as regards the exchanging, he is punishable [with lashes],23 whereas as regards the dedications, he is not punishable with lashes. 24 R. ELEAZAR SAYS: KIL'AYIM, TREFAH etc. Said Samuel: They are neither holy as regards exchange,25 nor can they confer holiness through exchange [on others].26 It was taught, Rabbi27 said: But since they are not holy themselves, how can they confer holiness? This is possible only in the case where one dedicated an animal28 and it afterwards became trefah,29 or dedicated an embryo [in its mother's womb] and it was extracted through the cesarean section. But with regard to kil'ayim, tumtum and a hermaphrodite, you cannot explain these cases except with reference to embryos of dedicated animals.30 And this accords with the view of R. Judah who said: An offspring of a dedicated animal can effect exchange!31 Said Raba:32 What is the reason of R. Eleazar? — They are like an unclean animal. Just as an unclean animal is not offered and bodily consecration cannot attach to it,33 so these [are not offered] and no bodily consecration attaches to them. Said [R. Adda b. Ahaba] to Raba:34 But is there not the case of a blemished animal which is not offered and yet there attaches to it bodily consecration?35 — A blemished animal belongs to the category [of animals] which are offered up.36 If this is so,37 what of trefah which also belongs to a category which is offered?38 Rather said Raba:39 It resembles an unclean animal. Just as an unclean animal is disqualified on account of the condition of its body, so all these cases40 are disqualified on account of the condition of the body,41 thus excluding the case of a blemished animal which is disqualified in virtue of a [mere] deficiency.42 Said R. Adda to Raba: Are there not the cases of anything too long or too short43 mentioned in the Scriptural passage and these are disqualifications of the [whole] body?44 Rather said Raba:45 It must be like an unclean animal [as follows]: Just as in the case of an unclean animal there is none [offered] in the same category [and it is not subject to the law of exchange], so in all cases where there is none [offered] in the same category [the law of exchange is not applicable], thus excluding a blemished animal, since there are [other animals offered] from the same category. Will you perhaps object that a trefah too has [other animals which are offered] from the same category?45 [I answer that] it [a trefah animal] is not on a par with the case of a blemished animal. An unclean animal is forbidden to be eaten and a trefah is also forbidden to be eaten, to the exclusion of a blemished animal which is permitted to be eaten. Said Samuel: If one has dedicated a trefah, a permanent blemish is required in order to redeem it.46 Can you not prove from here that one may redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat?47 — Rather say: It is dedicated in that it is left to die.48 R. Oshaia however says: It is only like dedicating wood and stones. 49 We learnt: We must not redeem dedicated animals which became trefah because we must not redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat. The reason50 is therefore because they became trefah; but if they were trefah at the beginning51 we may redeem them?52 — Perhaps this Tanna [of the Mishnah] holds: Wherever [the animal] is not fit [for offering] there does not rest upon it bodily dedication.53 Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR SAYS, KIL'AYIM, TREFAH, A FOETUS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF A CESAREAN SECTION, A TUMTUM AND A HERMAPHRODITE ARE NEITHER HOLY NOR CAN THEY CONFER HOLINESS. And54 Samuel said: ‘They are not holy’ [means] to receive holiness of an exchange. ‘Nor can they confer holiness’ [means] to effect exchange. And it has been taught: Said Rabbi, But since they are not holy themselves, how can they confer holiness [on others]?55 You cannot therefore explain this except as referring to where one dedicated an animal and it afterwards became trefah.56 [Now the reason is because the animal was dedicated first and then it became trefah], but if it was a trefah from the beginning [before the dedication], bodily consecration would not attach to it! 57 permissible, whereas in the case of originally dedicated animals, if the blemish came before the dedication, the animal becomes hullin after redemption and may be shorn and worked. dedication. wilfully consecrated a permanently blemished animal, he is guilty of breaking five prohibitory laws as stated in Chap. I. exchanging, as if it had become blemished (Rashi). be eaten without redemption. this house this animal shall be an exchange for this and that animal shall be dedicated with my full knowledge’. He entered, exchanged and dedicated without saying anything at all when he entered or thinking of what he had said previously. Therefore the exchange and the dedication took place without him knowing it. dedication. consecrated as such, nevertheless these cases mentioned in the Mishnah are different. There is certainly no consecration as such in the cases of trefah, kil'ayim, etc., as they are only holy for their value, like wood or stones and do not require redemption. the mother. In these cases the Mishnah informs us that they do not effect exchange. tumtum etc. that although they are holy through their mother they cannot effect exchange, in spite of the fact that R. Judah holds elsewhere that the offspring of a dedicated animal effects exchange. became trefah should effect exchange, and if it became trefah when hullin should also become holy if exchanged for a dedicated animal. was extracted by means of the cesarean section is almost a species by itself and is not in the category of ordinary animals. The other four cases, kil'ayim, tumtum, etc. also do not belong to the category of animals which are offered up and, according to Tosaf., almost belong to a different species. which is offered up. die and then buried. redeemed in order to be given to the dogs to eat. blemish being required to make redemption permissible. Samuel.