Temurah

for his Passover sacrifice or for his guilt-offering, the [animal] can effect exchange.1 R. Simeon Says: [The female animal set aside] for his burnt-offering effects exchange,2 but that which he sets aside for his Passover sacrifice or guilt-offering cannot effect exchange,3 since there is no [animal] which can effect exchange except that which pastures until unfit for sacrifice. 4 Said Rabbi: I do not approve of the opinion of R. Simeon with reference to a Passover sacrifice,5 since unused [money or animals] dedicated for the Passover is offered as peace-offerings.6 And why does he not Say: I do not approve of the opinion of R. Simeon in connection with a guilt-offering, since an unused guilt-offering is offered as a burnt-offering?7 — Rabbi holds the opinion of the Rabbis who say: The surpluses [of sacrificial appropriation] belong to the freewill-offerings of the congregation8 and the congregation cannot effect exchange.9 Now it is assumed that the reason why R. Simeon holds that a female set aside as a burnt-offering can effect exchange is because a female has the name of burnt-offering [in the case of a poor man who brings]10 a burnt-offering of a bird. According to this a cow set aside by a High Priest for his [sacrificial] bullock,11 should become holy and effect exchange, since we have the case of the cow of sin-offering?12 — The cow of sin-offering is regarded as a dedication for Temple repairs13 and a dedication for Temple repairs cannot effect exchange. Then if an individual sets aside a goat instead of a she-goat14 [for his sin-offering], let it become holy,15 since we find elsewhere the case of a ‘ruler’ who sets aside a goat for a sin-offering?16 Or, again, if a ‘ruler’ sets aside a she-goat instead of a goat [as a sin-offering], let it become holy, since elsewhere an individual sets aside a she-goat [for a sin-offering]? — These are two Separate persons [bodies].17 But if he sinned before he was a ‘ruler’, even if he set aside a goat in place of a she-goat, let it become holy [and effect exchange] since, if he sinned now, [after his appointment]18 he brings a goat?19 — Here,20 [it is different,21 for] since he did not sin [as a ‘ruler’], he is not required to bring a goat. If so, here too,22 he does not [actually] bring a burnt-offering of a bird?23 — R. Simeon24 holds the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.25 For we have learnt: [If one says] ‘Behold, I take upon myself to bring a burnt-offering’,26 he brings a sheep,27 whereas R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: Or a turtle-dove or a pigeon. 28 We have learnt elsewhere: If one dedicates his property [for Temple repairs] and there are animals29 among them fit for the altar [i.e., unblemished], males and females, R. Eliezer says: The males shall be sold as burnt-offerings and the females shall be sold as peace-offerings, and their money together with the rest of the property shall go for Temple repairs.30 R. Joshua, however, says: The males themselves are offered as burnt-offerings,31 the females are sold as peace-offerings, burnt-offerings32 are bought with their money and the rest of the property is applied for Temple repairs. Said R. Hiyya b. Abba to R. Johanan: According to the opinion of R. Joshua, who said that the males are themselves offered as burnt-offerings, how can the females be offered as peace-offerings, seeing that their status is that of cancelled holiness? 33 Another version: Said R. Hiyya b. Abba to R. Johanan: Since R. Joshua Says, The males are themselves offered as burnt-offerings, does this mean to say that he dedicated them in respect of bodily dedication? If so, why are the females sold for peace-offerings? Do not [the females] require to pasture? — He [R. Johanan] answered him: R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon who says: Anything which is not fit [for offering] is not subject to bodily dedication.34 For we have learnt: R. SIMEON SAYS: IT SHALL BE SOLD WITHOUT [WAITING FOR] A BLEMISH. And we explained that the reason of R. Simeon is that since the female animal is not fit for a guilt-offering, it is not subject to bodily dedication. Here35 too36 since a female animal is not fit for a burnt-offering, it is not subject to bodily dedication.37 But does not R. Simeon's teaching refer only to a case where one sets aside a female animal for a guilt-offering can be a burnt-offering even though a female (Rashi). effect exchange; whereas a female animal designated as a burnt-offering, since the name of a burnt-offering is found in connection with a female bird, pastures until it becomes unfit and therefore effects exchange (Rashi). therefore although this particular animal cannot be offered as a Passover sacrifice, we consider that it has the name of peace- offering and thus can effect exchange (Rashi). R. Gershom explains that we regard the Passover sacrifice as ‘surplus’ for the value of which we purchase a peace-offering, and thus it can effect exchange. exchange, like a female burnt-offering, for we have the case of a female burnt-offering in connection with birds (Rashi). individual can set aside a female animal for his burnt-offering and it becomes holy and effects exchange, because if he, the same person, wished he could renounce his property in order to become a poor man and thus be able legally to bring a female bird for his burnt-offering. man's offering. Therefore a female animal set aside for a burnt-offering should not become consecrated as such and thus should not effect exchange. animal dedicated as a burnt-offering has the name of a burnt-offering. whatever is suitable for the altar must be given up to the altar. they were dedicated for the altar and they themselves are offered up. presumably he holds that he dedicated them all for burnt-offerings. But a female animal dedicated as a burnt-offering must pasture, as stated above, its holiness as a burnt-offering having been cancelled (supra 18a). How then can they be offered as peace-offerings? holiness which would make it requisite for them to pasture until unfit for sacrifice, but they are sold.