Temurah

We infer then the case of a final act in the dedication1 from the case of a preliminary act in the dedication.2 Just as in the case of the preliminary act, an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication], so in the case of the final act, an heir can lay on hands. And what will R. Judah do with the text: ‘And if he shall at all change’?3 — It is to include [the exchange by] a woman, and as it is taught: Since the whole context [of exchanging] speaks only of the masculine gender, as it says: He shall not alter it nor change it,4 whence do you derive that the same applies to a woman? The text therefore states:5 ‘And if he shall at all change’,6 in order to include a woman. And whence does R. Meir7 derive that a woman [can effect an exchange]? — He derives it from the waw [‘and’].8 And [what does] R. Judah [say to this]? — He does not interpret the waw.9 Now according to the view both of R. Meir and of R. Judah, the reason [why the law of substitution applies to a woman] is because Scripture expressly included the case of a woman,10 but if it had not included it, I might have thought that when she exchanged she was not punishable [with lashes].11 Surely Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab and likewise a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: [Scripture says:] When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit;12 Scripture thus places woman on a par with man in respect of all the penalties mentioned in the Torah! — You13 might be under the impression14 this is the case only as regards a penalty which applies equally, both to the individual and the community, but there,15 since the penalty does not apply equally in all cases, for we have learnt: A community or partners cannot effect an exchange,16 therefore in the case of a woman also if she performed an exchange she would not be punishable [with lashes]. Hence we are informed [that this is not so]. Rami b. Hama asked: Can a minor effect an exchange? What kind of case do you mean? Shall I say, it is the case of a minor who has not yet reached the stage of [legal] vows?17 Surely there should be no question about this, for since he is unable [legally] to dedicate, how can he effect an exchange? — Rather the case is that of a minor who has reached the stage of [legal] vows.18 Do we say, seeing that a Master said: [Scripture could have stated:] When a man shall utter a vow of persons. Why then does it say: If a man shall clearly utter19 a vow? It is in order to include ‘a doubtful person20 next to a man’ in that his dedication is valid.21 Now do we say that since he can dedicate, he can effect an exchange? Or, perhaps, since a minor is not punishable,22 he cannot effect an exchange?23 And if you were to maintain that a minor can effect an exchange, since ultimately he comes into the category of being punishable,24 can a gentile effect an exchange? Should we say, since he can legally dedicate an animal for sacrifice, as it has been taught: [Scripture says:] A man, a man [of the house of Israel].25 What need is there for Scripture to repeat ‘man’? It is in order to intimate that the gentiles can make votive freewill-offerings like the Israelites;26 [do we say that] they therefore can also effect an exchange? Or perhaps since [they] never come into the category of being punishable,27 [do we say that] when an exchange is performed by them [the animal] is not sacred? — Said Raba, Come and hear: For it has been taught, No secular use may be made of the dedications of gentiles, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.28 Nor are [these] subject to the law of piggul,29 nothar,30 and uncleanness. [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange, nor can they bring drink-offerings,31 but the animal offering [of a gentile] requires [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings. These are the words of R. Simeon. R. Jose said: In all [these things]32 I favour the strict view.33 This34 applies only to things dedicated for the altar,35 but with things dedicated [for their value] to be used for Temple needs, the law of sacrilege applies. At all events [the Baraitha] says: [Gentiles] cannot effect an exchange.36 And what does Rami b. Hama [say to this]?37 — My inquiry does not refer to a case where a gentile dedicates [an animal] for his own atonement.38 My inquiry has reference to a case where a gentile dedicated an animal so that an Israelite may be atoned for [by its sacrifice]. Do we go by the person who consecrates39 or by the person for whom atonement is made?40 But why not solve this question from what R. Abbuha said? For R. Abbuha reported in the name of R. Johanan: [Only] he who dedicates must add a fifth,41 and he who is to procure atonement can effect an exchange,42 and if one separates [the priestly due] from his own [grain] with man with reference only to a prohibition where an action is involved (e.g., the desecration of the Sabbath etc.) but in the case of a prohibition where no action is involved (as, for example, the exchanging of an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated one, where the words themselves constitute an action) I might have thought that she is not punishable with lashes, hence we are informed otherwise. word is of no importance. From the age of thirteen years and a day, however, his vows and dedications are legal, even if he is not conscious of their significance. realises their import. therefore say anyone to whom this prohibitory law and the penalty attached thereto apply, can perform an exchange, but as the prohibition and the penalty are not relevant to a minor, therefore his exchange is not valid. prescribed time limit, v. Glos. cannot bring. sacrilege. exchange, since he does not come into the category of being punishable. thus becoming sacred. stranger redeems it, Scripture does not make it incumbent upon the redeemer to add a fifth, v. Lev. XXVII, 15. atonement is made.