Temurah

has the same status. You can deduce from this1 three things: You can deduce from this that animals2 [dedicated for sacrifices] can be removed for ever from sacred use.3 You can also deduce from this that the holiness of animals dedicated for their value4 can be removed.5 You can also deduce from this that a removal from sacred use at the beginning [of a dedication]6 is valid for ever.7 Said Abaye: All the authorities concerned agree [even R. Jose] that if he says: A half of an animal shall be a burnt-offering and the other half an animal tithed, all are agreed that it is offered as a burnt-offering.8 What is the ruling, however, if he says: A half of an animal shall be an exchange and half of an animal tithed?9 Is the animal offered as an exchange, since it [the exchange] applies to all dedications, or is it perhaps offered as an animal tithed, since [the animal] before the tenth and the succeeding [one] are consecrated?10 — Let it remain undecided. MISHNAH. [IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD THIS [ANIMAL] IS TAHATH [INSTEAD OF] THIS, BEHOLD THIS IS HALIFATH [IN PLACE OF] THIS, BEHOLD THIS IS TEMURATH [THE EXCHANGE OF] THIS, [EACH OF THESE] IS THE CASE OF A VALID EXCHANGE. [IF HOWEVER ONE SAYS:] THIS SHALL BE REDEEMED11 FOR THIS, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF A [VALID] EXCHANGE.12 AND IF THE DEDICATED ANIMAL WAS BLEMISHED, IT BECOMES HULLIN13 AND HE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE UP [THE HULLIN] TO THE VALUE [OF THE DEDICATED ANIMAL].14 GEMARA. Does this mean to say that the [word] tahath15 has the meaning of occupying the place of?16 This is contradicted [by the following]: As regards dedications for Temple repairs, if one says: Halifath this,17 temurath this, he has said nothing.18 [If, however, one says:] Tahath this, [this is] redeemed for this, his words stand.19 Now if we suppose that the [word] ‘tahath’ has the meaning of occupying the place of, what is the difference between the first and second clause [of the Baraitha]?20 — Said Abaye: The [word] ‘tahath’ is used in the sense of occupying the place of and in the sense of redeeming. In the sense of occupying the place of, as Scripture says:21 previous suspension from sacred use. therefore see from R. Johanan's teaching that it is not so. For there is a difference of opinion (in Suk. 33a), one authority maintaining that where a dedicated animal was originally fit to be offered and the holiness was then suspended and finally the animal became fit again for sacred use, the animal is removed forever from sacred use, but where the suspension of holiness occurred at the very beginning of its consecration, if it became fit again, it may be used for sacred purposes. does not become holy except by passing through the shed and being numbered as the tenth. The same law applies if one says: Half the animal shall be a burnt-offering, the other half shall be an exchange, the latter statement having no effect, since there is no animal present for which an exchange might be effected (Rashi). Tosaf. remarks that even if he says that the whole animal shall become tithed, his words are of no avail, and therefore explains that the circumstances here are where a man causes his flock to pass under the rod and as the tenth animal emerges from the shed he says: Let half of it be a burnt-offering and the rest tithed. All the authorities concerned will agree that the animal in such circumstances becomes a burnt-offering, as a dedication for a burnt-offering is a more important consecration than the dedication for animal tithing, since the latter consecration requires the passing under a rod and numbering before the animal can receive any holiness. Tosaf. also proceed to ask, seeing that the law of tithe is a divine decree, how can a dedication like that of a burnt-offering suspend it, and explain that we are dealing here with a case where he called the animal a burnt-offering when only a small part of the animal emerged from the shed, whereas animal tithe requires that the greater part of it shall emerge before holiness can take effect. except when the animal is passing through the shed to be numbered, and in the case of exchange one cannot say: Let this be an exchange unless there is an animal with which a substitute might be effected. tenth and the eleventh. one explanation given later in the Gemara, this is only a Rabbinical requirement. repairs. for Temple repairs can be redeemed. his words stand, for since tahath is used in the sense of exchanging and there is no exchange in connection with repairs for Temple purposes, the Baraitha should have stated in the second clause also that his words are of no consequence.