Temurah

CHAPTER I MISHNAH. ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE,1 MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN; NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE,2 BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED,3 AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES.4 GEMARA. [The Mishnah] contains a contradiction in itself. You say: ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE, implying that it is [permissible to exchange in the first instance] and [then it says]: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, implying, only after it has been done?5 — But how can you understand it that ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE in the first instance! In that case, instead of bringing a contradiction from the Mishnah, you could rather bring it from the Scriptural verse, since it says: He shall not alter it nor change it!6 Rab Judah therefore said: What [the Mishnah] means is this: ALL PERSONS CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE,7 MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN;8 NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED, AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. What additional case is included by [the word] ALL?9 — It includes the case of an heir,10 and [the Mishnah] will not be in accordance with the view of R. Judah,11 for it has been taught:12 An heir can lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice];13 an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. This is the teaching of R. Meir; whereas R. Judah says: An heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice] nor can an heir effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. What is R. Judah's reason? — We infer the case of a preliminary act in the dedication14 from the case of a final act in the dedication.15 Just as in the case of the final act, an heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice], so in the case of the preliminary act, an heir cannot effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. And how do we know this in the case of laying on of hands itself?16 — Three times the expression his offerings17 is used: One [intimates that] ‘his offering’ [requires laying on of hands], but not that of a gentile. One [that] ‘his offering’, but not that of his fellow. And one ‘his offering’ but not his father's dedication.18 But as for R. Meir, who rules that an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication], surely ‘his offering’ is written?19 — He needs this in order to include partners in a sacrifice20 as requiring to perform laying on of hands. And [what does] R. Judah] [say to this]?21 — He does not hold that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.22 What is the reason? Because their sacrifice is not designated.23 Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say that R. Judah may still be of the opinion [that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands] but he derives the cases both of the sacrifice of a gentile and a fellow's sacrifice24 from the one text.25 There is left over therefore one text, from which we derive that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.26 And as to R. Meir, who rules that an heir can exchange [with his father's dedication] what is his reason? — He can tell you: [Scripture says:] And if he shall at all change,27 to intimate that an heir can change. of the flock (Ibid. 6). And if he offer a lamb for his offering (Ibid. 7). And in each text the law of ‘laying on of hands’ is laid down. they all have to lay hands on the animal prior to killing it. offering’ excludes a father's dedication from the need of the laying on of hands. law of laying on of hands. For it cannot be said to be solely for the purpose of excluding the sacrifice of a gentile from the laying on of hands, since this is already derived from another Biblical text as explained in Men. 93a. with a father's dedication, since a father's sacrifice might naturally be regarded as one's own and consequently subject to the laying on of hands. There is need therefore for a special text to inform us that this is not so. father's sacrifice is effective.