Temurah

But if the bright spot stay tahteha in its place;1 and [in the sense] of redeeming, as it says: For [tahat] the brass I will bring gold.2 [This being the case, the matter was left in the hand of the Sages.]3 With regard to dedications for the altar which can effect exchange, [‘tahath’] has the meaning of occupying the place of, whereas with regard to dedications for Temple repairs which do not effect exchange, [‘tahath’] has the meaning of redeeming.4 Raba said: Even in connection with dedication for the altar [the word ‘tahath’ sometimes] has the sense of redeeming, as e.g., where the dedicated [animal] was blemished.5 Said R. Ashi: Even in connection with a blemished dedicated animal [tahath sometimes] has the sense of redeeming and sometimes has the sense of occupying the place of, [as follows]: [If he placed] his hand on a dedicated [blemished] animal,6 the animal becomes hullin,7 [but if he placed] his hand on an animal of hullin,8 it becomes dedicated.9 Abaye inquired: What is the ruling if there were two dedicated blemished animals before him and two unblemished animals of hullin, and he says, Let these be tahath [in place of] these?10 Did11 he intend to substitute them [the former], or did he intend to redeem them [with the Iatter]?12 And if you say that where there exists a legitimate way, a man will not abandon what is permitted and do what is forbidden,13 what is the ruling if he had two dedicated animals before him, one of which was blemished, and two animals of hullin, one of which was blemished, and he said, Let these be tahath [instead of] these? Did he mean: The unblemished in place of the unblemished, in the sense of being substituted,14 and the blemished animal of hullin in place of the dedicated blemished animal, in the sense of being redeemed?15 Or perhaps the unblemished animal of hullin in place of the blemished dedicated animal, and the blemished animal of hullin in place of the unblemished dedicated animal and, in both cases, there is a punishment of lashes?16 And if you say that wherever there exists a legitimate way, a man will not do what is forbidden, and therefore he means to redeem and there is no punishment of lashes, what is the ruling if there were three dedicated animals before him, one of which was blemished, and three unblemished animals of hullin, and he says, Behold these shall be instead of these?17 Do we say, since [when he says] ‘these two unblemished animals instead of the unblemished animals’, he means they are to be substituted,18 so [when he says] ‘the unblemished animal of hullin instead of the dedicated blemished animal’ [he also means], they are to be substituted? Or perhaps here too [we apply the principle that] wherever there exists a legitimate way, a man will not do what is forbidden, and therefore in the latter case,19 he meant to redeem? And if you say that here too, since nevertheless there is no presumption against this man as regards prohibitions,20 [we say that a man] would not abandon what is permitted and do what is forbidden, R. Ashi inquired: What is the ruling if one had four dedicated animals before him, one of which was blemished, and four unblemished animals of hullin, and he says: Let these be instead of these? Here [in this case] since there is certainly a presumption against the man as regards prohibitions,21 do we say that he is therefore punishable four times with lashes,22 or perhaps although there is a presumption against him as regards prohibitions, [do we say that a man] will not abandon what is permitted and do what is forbidden and therefore the last animal23 was meant to be redeemed? — Let it stand undecided. AND IF THE DEDICATED ANIMAL WAS BLEMISHED, IT BECOMES HULLIN etc. Said R. Johanan: Its becoming hullin is an ordinance of the Biblical law,24 whereas his being required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedication] is an ordinance of the Rabbinical law.25 Resh Lakish, however, says that his having to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal] is also according to the Biblical law. Now with what kind of case are we dealing here? Shall we say that this refers to overreaching?26 But will Resh Lakish ho]d in such a case that he must make up [the hullin] to the value of a dedicated animal in accordance with Biblical law? Have we not learnt: To the following overreaching does not apply: Slaves, bonds, immovable properties, and dedications? [Shall we say] then that this refers to the cancellation of the sale?27 But will R. Johanan hold in such a case that he is required to make up the value of a dedication according to the Rabbinical law? remaining holy. the holiness of this animal to the other. occupying the place of. The bracketed words are inserted with Sh. Mek. redeeming. referring also to the first clause: Behold this is tahath (instead of) this (R. Gershom). he shows that he meant to effect exchange, for if he intended to redeem, he would have placed his hands on the dedicated animal. holy in accordance with the law of exchange. animal of hullin where he says: Let this be tahath (instead of) this. But since later on the inquiry particularly refers to two animals, the case of two animals is also mentioned here. R. Gershom and the text in cur. edd. have the following reading: Do we say that he means to substitute (i.e., to effect exchange with these animals and there will thus be two transgressions of the prohibitory law), or perhaps where there exists a way which is permissible, a man would not abandon that which is permitted and do what is forbidden (and consequently he means here to redeem the dedicated animal with the animals of hullin, the latter thus becoming holy in place of the former). was to redeem. learnt above that unblemished dedications for the altar are meant to be used as exchange. blemished (bad), since Scripture speaks only of ‘bad for good’ or ‘good for bad’, but not when both are bad. still ground for inquiry in this case, since one can maintain that we follow the majority, and as two of the unblemished dedicated animals were certainly meant to be exchanged, the third blemished dedicated animal can also be regarded as being for the same purpose, i.e., exchange, although thereby there is the infringing of a prohibition. connection. hekdesh (consecrated property) from the laws of overreaching. must be returned.