Temurah

GEMARA. R. Isaac the son of Joseph reported in the name of R. Johanan: All the authorities concerned agree that if one says, ‘Let this1 take effect’, and afterwards, ‘Let this2 take effect’, it is the opinion of all that we hold to the first statement. [If he says:] ‘Let not this take effect unless this other takes effect’, all agree that both are holy. The dispute, however, is only e.g., in the case stated by the Mishnah: The exchange of a burnt-offering, the exchange of a peace-offering, R. Meir holding that since he ought to have said,3 The exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, and he said, The exchange of a burnt-offering, the exchange of a peace-offering, it is like the case of one who says, ‘Let this take effect’ and afterwards, ‘Let this take effect’.4 R. Jose, however, holds: [The man5 thinks that] if he said: The exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, the result would be that it is holy but is not offered.6 R. Jose therefore informs us [that his words stand].7 Our Rabbis have taught: If one says, This animal shall be half the exchange of a burnt-offering and the other half the exchange of a peace-offering, the whole animal is offered as a burnt-offering. This is the teaching of R. Meir.8 The Sages, however, say: Let it pasture until it becomes blemished. It is then sold and with the half of its money an exchange of a burnt-offering is purchased and with the other half of its money an exchange of a peace-offering. R. Jose says: If he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But is not the opinion of R. Jose identical with that of the Rabbis? — The whole [of the first part of this Baraitha] is taught by R. Jose.9 Another [Baraitha] taught: An animal, half of which is a burnt-offering and the other half a sin-offering, is offered as a burnt-offering. This is the teaching of R. Meir. R. Jose says: Let it die.10 And both [these Tannaim] hold alike that if one says [first]: A half of the animal shall be a sin-offering and [then] the other half shall be a burnt-offering, [the animal] is condemned to die. [You say], ‘They hold alike’. Now whose opinion does this mean to represent? That of R. Meir!11 But surely this is obvious!12 — You might have said that if we had not been informed of this,13 I might have thought that the reason of R. Meir is not because of the rule: ‘Hold to the first statement’, but the reason [really] is because a sin-offering which has been mixed up with another dedication is offered,14 and therefore even if he said [first]: A half of the animal shall be a sin-offering and then a half shall be a burnt-offering, it is offered. [The Baraitha] therefore informs us that it is not so. 15 Another [Baraitha] taught: If one says, Half of this animal shall be a burnt-offering and the [other] half shall be a peace-offering, it is holy but is not offered.16 It [the animal] effects exchange17 and its exchange has the same status.18 Now whose opinion does this Baraitha represent? That of R. Jose!19 Surely it is obvious that the animal is holy but is not offered! — [The Baraitha] requires to mention the case of its exchange,20 for you might have said: Granted that the animal itself is not offered, still its exchange is offered.21 [The Baraitha] therefore informs us as follows: Why is the case [of the animal itself] different so that it is not offered? Because of suspended holiness.22 Its exchange also is such in virtue of a suspended holiness.23 R. Johanan said: If an animal belonged to two partners and one dedicated his half and then proceeded to purchase the other half and dedicated it, [the animal] is holy but is not offered;24 it effects exchange and its exchange peace-offering as well as burnt-offering, in order that the animal should be offered. not take effect without the other taking effect. holds (supra 18a) that if one dedicated a foot of an animal the whole animal does not receive holiness, the case here is different where a half of the animal is dedicated, since it is a section of the animal without which it cannot live. bring a sin-offering, the animal is condemned to die, like a sin-offering whose owners procured atonement through another animal (R. Gershom). Tosaf. comments that in circumstances where one is not required to bring a sin-offering, if he says: Let this animal be a sin-offering, his words are of no avail and that we are dealing here with a case where one says: Let half of this animal be exchanged for a burnt-offering and the other half be exchanged for a sin-offering, R. Jose holding that the animal dies, since the holiness of both sacrifices rests on the animal, and as one dedication is that of the exchange of a sin-offering, the animal is condemned to die. inevitably hold that it is condemned to die. sin-offering, it must certainly be left to die, as he is not obliged to bring a sin-offering. mixed up in the animal a dedication which makes it fit to be offered, we ignore the other dedication which makes it unfit to be offered (Rashi). peace-offering with the other half. simply said: Let this animal be for that (R. Gershom). Tosaf. explains that the intention was not that the exchange should be half a burnt-offering and half a peace-offering, but that the animal should be a complete exchange, either for half of a burnt-offering or for the half of a pace-offering, for although one may not exchange a whole animal for a limb of a dedicated animal, the case is different where the exchange is effected for a half of a dedicated animal. itself cannot be offered, and the holiness of the other half, since it was not his, could not spread to the rest of the animal.