Temurah

and something which does not come through a partnership.1 Rabbi says: And for what purpose now is tithe specially mentioned?2 In order to infer the cases of [one which became tithe through] a change of name3 and the exchange of actual tithe.4 [And further] to teach you that that which becomes tithe through a change of name is offered up,5 whereas the exchange of actual tithe is not offered up;6 that which becomes tithe through a change of name is redeemed,7 whereas the exchange of actual tithe is not redeemed;8 an exchange of actual tithe has effect both on what is fit [unblemished], and what is not fit [blemished],9 whereas a change of name [of tithe] has effect only on what is fit.10 The question was asked:11 Because the Divine Law includes the case of that which became tithe through a change of name, should it therefore be inferior [in holiness]?12 — Yes, for we say what [the Law] has included is included, but what it has not included, is not included. And whence do you derive this?13 — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Because it14 is made the subject of a fresh statement, and therefore we do not go beyond the anomalous feature.15 Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to Raba: According to R. Simeon who says: [Exchange is effected with] something which comes obligatorily, is it only an obligatory burnt-offering that can effect exchange but not a freewill burnt-offering? — He answered him: A freewill burnt-offering also; since he took upon himself [to offer it up],16 it can effect exchange, and [R. Simeon's teaching]17 is necessary only for the case of a burnt-offering which comes from surpluses [of sacrificial appropriations].18 Now what is his view? If he holds with the authority who says that the surpluses go for freewill gifts of the congregation, then actually exchange cannot be effected, since a congregation cannot effect exchange! — Then R. Simeon will hold with the authority who says that the surpluses go for freewill gifts of individuals.19 Now from whom have we heard this opinion? From R. Eliezer.20 But have we not heard him explicitly [state] that exchange is effected?21 For it has been taught: A burnt-offering which came from the surpluses can effect exchange. This is the teaching of R. Eliezer! — R. Simeon agrees with him on one point and differs from him on another. [He22 agrees with him on one point, that surpluses are applied to gifts for individuals],23 and differs from him on another point, for R. Eliezer holds: A burnt-offering brought from surpluses can effect exchange, whereas R. Simeon holds it cannot effect exchange. If so,24 as regards the inquiry of R. Abin:25 If he set apart a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and made an exchange for it, and [the26 first animal then became blemished and he redeemed it for another which became lost], and he obtained atonement through another guilt-offering, and the lost animal was then found and was [automatically] transformed into a burnt-offering, what is the ruling as regards making an exchange with it [the burnt-offering]? Whose opinion does this inquiry presuppose? It can hardly be that of R. Simeon, for you say that R. Simeon holds that a burnt-offering which comes from surpluses cannot effect exchange! — R. Abin's inquiry is thus: If you can find a Tanna who holds R. Simeon's opinion who says that one cannot exchange repeatedly and holds also R. Eliezer's opinion who says that a burnt-offering which comes from the surpluses can effect exchange, what of exchanging it again? With reference to two bodies [different animals] and one kind of holiness,27 what is the ruling? And if you adopt the opinion that one kind of holiness cannot28 [effect exchange again], what is the ruling in the case of two kinds of holiness and one body?29 Let this question remain.30 MISHNAH declaring a private offering subject to the law of exchange there is no need for a special mention of tithe, since Scripture says, ‘he shall etc.’ in the singular. That the dedication must be one for the altar is also inferred from the word korban mentioned in connection with the law of exchange. We therefore see that Rabbi holds that dedications for the Temple repairs are not called korban. Also as regards R. Simeon's exception from the law of exchange of the case of a burnt-offering brought from the surpluses of sacrificial appropriations because dedications must be something which come obligatorily, Rabbi will maintain that surpluses can go for communal offerings. The ruling also concerning partners and congregations not being able to effect exchange can be inferred from the text, He shall not alter, etc., since it is couched in the singular number (Rashi). offered up as peace-offerings. We derive this from the text: ‘And all the tithe’. The animal is therefore not actually tithe but has been named tithe in error. case having effect. There is need for the special mention of tithe, for otherwise I might have said that there is no exchange in this case, as the rendering of an animal tithe by a change of name is itself an anomaly and therefore one cannot go beyond it (Rashi). weighing the flesh by the pound. dedication. the case of tithe through change of name should be more strict and take effect even when the animal is blemished. money we purchased a burnt-offering. and was redeemed for another. The second animal, although another body, possesses the same kind of holiness as the first, i.e., the holiness of a guilt-offering. transformed into a burnt-offering. Thus here there are two kinds of holiness with the same body.