Temurah

that a young pumpkin [now] is better than a full-grown pumpkin [to-morrow].1 MISHNAH. ONE CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE WITH SMALL CATTLE FOR OXEN AND WITH OXEN FOR SMALL CATTLE; WITH SHEEP FOR GOATS AND WITH GOATS FOR SHEEP; WITH MALE [ANIMALS] FOR FEMALE [ANIMALS] AND WITH FEMALE [ANIMALS] FOR MALE [ANIMALS]; WITH UNBLEMISHED ANIMALS] FOR BLEMISHED ANIMALS AND WITH BLEMISHED [ANIMALS] FOR UNBLEMISHED [ANIMALS], SINCE SCRIPTURE SAYS:2 HE SHALL NOT ALTER IT NOR CHANGE IT, A GOOD3 FOR A BAD4 OR A BAD5 FOR A GOOD. WHAT KIND IS MEANT BY ‘A GOOD FOR A BAD?6 BLEMISHED ANIMALS WHOSE DEDICATION WAS PRIOR TO THEIR BLEMISH. GEMARA. Whence is this proved?7 — Our Rabbis have taught: Scripture says, ‘Beast for beast’; ‘hence8 we infer that one can effect an exchange with small cattle for oxen and with oxen for small cattle; with sheep for goats and with goats for sheep; with male [animals] for female [animals] and with female [animals] for male [animals]; with blemished [animals] for unblemished [animals] and with unblemished [animals] for blemished [animals]. One might think that this is so even if they had a permanent blemish prior to their dedication? The text therefore States: ‘He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good’. What kind is meant by ‘a good for a bad’? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish [but9 not where the blemish was prior to their dedication]. How is this implied [in the Scriptural text]?10 — Said Abaye: Let Scripture say, ‘He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for it’.11 What need is there for the second text, ‘a good’? Deduce therefore from here that only if the animal is originally ‘good’12 the exchange takes effect.13 , but the exchange takes no effect in respect of an animal originally ‘bad’.14 Raba says: Both the expressions ‘a good’ are indeed superfluous.15 [Scripture] might simply have written: ‘He shall not alter it nor change it16 for a bad or a bad for it’?17 What need is there then for both the expressions ‘a good’? One ‘a good’ teaches us that even if one exchanges a good [animal] for a good [one], there is the punishment of lashes for substituting, and the other ‘a good’ teaches us that exchange takes effect only when the animal was ‘good’ originally, but where it was originally ‘bad’, exchange takes no effect. And whence will Abaye [derive18 that it is forbidden to exchange a good for a good]?19 — He holds that it is derived a minori. If where ‘a good’ [an unblemished hullin] is exchanged for ‘a bad’ [a blemished animal], in which case an improve is effected,20 the punishment of lashes is inflicted, how much more so should there be the punishment of lashes if one exchanges ‘a good’ for ‘a good’, which are alike [in holiness]! And Raba?21 — An offence established by inference [from minor to major] is not punishable.22 And Abaye? — He can answer you thus: This23 is no conclusion from [minor to major, but24 is merely an intimation of a thing];25 for is the case of ‘a good’ [an unblemished consecrated animal] worse than the case of ‘a bad’ [blemished animal]?26 Our Rabbis taught: ‘He shall not alter it’27 [for hullin]28 belonging to others.29 ‘Nor change it’ [for hullin] belonging to himself. But let it write [simply]: ‘He shall not alter it’ and there will then be no need for the expression ‘nor change it’? If it had written so, I might have said that where [the intention is for the original animal] to lose its holiness and the [substituted one] to acquire holiness,30 there is the punishment of lashes, but in the case of exchanging [the consecrated animal for his own hullin], where [if he wishes] he can consecrate both,31 I might have thought there is no punishment of lashes. [Scripture] therefore informs us [that it is not so].32 As to the expression, ‘[for hullin] belonging to others’, how is this to be understood? Shall we say [that it means] his own consecrated animal and hullin belonging to another? But can he consecrate [hullin in such circumstances]?33 The Divine Law says: When a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord.34 Just as his house is his own possession, so everything35 must be in his possession! Again if the case then is of a consecration belonging to another and his own hullin,36 can one cause the substitution37 of a thing which is not his? — One can still maintain that the case is of a consecrated animal belonging to another person and his own hullin and when e.g., the owner of the consecrated animals says: ‘Whoever wishes to exchange with this animal may come and do so’.38 MISHNAH. ONE CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR TWO [CONSECRATED ANIMALS],39 AND WITH TWO [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL]; WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR A HUNDRED [CONSECRATED ANIMALS] AND WITH A HUNDRED [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL]; R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: NO EXCHANGE CAN BE EFFECTED EXCEPT WITH ONE [HULLIN] FOR ONE [CONSECRATED ANIMAL], FOR IT SAYS: ‘THEN IT AND THE EXCHANGE THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY’, THUS TEACHING US THAT JUST AS ‘IT’ [THE CONSECRATED ANIMAL] IS ONLY ONE,40 SO [ITS SUBSTITUTE] ALSO MUST BE ONLY ONE. GEMARA. Whence is this proved? — Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says:] ‘Beast for beast’. Hence we infer41 that one can effect an exchange with one [hullin] for two [consecrated animals] and with two [hullin] for one [consecrated animal]; with one [hullin] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and with a hundred [hullin] for one [consecrated animal]. R. Simeon, however, says: One cannot effect exchange except with one [hullin] for one [consecrated animal], since it Says: ‘Beast for beast’, [implying] but not beast for beasts or beasts for beast. They42 said to him: We find [in the Scriptures] that beasts are also called behemah,43 since it says: And also much cattle [behemah].44 And what does R. Simeon say to this? — Many animals are described as behemah rabah [much], but not simply as behemah.45 But is R. Simeon's reason46 because of the expression ‘beast’? Is not the reason of R. Simeon because of the expression ‘it’, [his reasoning being] just as ‘it’ is only one, so its [substitute] must be only one?47 — At first, R. Simeon said to them that his reason was based on the text, ‘Then it and the exchange thereof’. When he saw, however, that the Rabbis interpreted the text ‘beast for beast’, he said to then,: ‘I also can derive the reason for my ruling from the same source Said Resh Lakish: R. Simeon agrees48 that one can effect an exchange repeatedly.49 What is the reason? — For where has the holiness of the first dedicated animal gone?50 But R. Johanan says: Just as one cannot effect an exchange with two hullin for one [consecration], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly [with the same animal]. There is a teaching in agreement with R. Johanan; there is a teaching in agreement with Resh Lakish. ‘There is a teaching in agreement with R. Johanan’: Just as one cannot effect an exchange with one hullin for two [consecrations], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. There is a teaching in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish: One might have thought that just as R. Simeon holds that one cannot effect an exchange with two [hullin] for one [consecrated animal], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. The text therefore states: ‘Then it and the exchange thereof’, implying, even for a hundred [animals of hullin].51 R. Abin asked: How is it according to the authority who says52 that one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly, if he set aside a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and made an exchange for it, after all not gain anything by it, as he may not receive the future firstlings. The additional gain of the moment will appeal to him more than the uncertain prospects of future gain. animals. shows that substitution has effect on a blemished animal. effect. blemished one. (blemished) consecrated animal. good’. animal for which substitution is made is ‘a good’ (unblemished one), for Scripture is only concerned that no exchange should be made with something which is holy. nevertheless punished with lashes, for his intention was to release it from its sanctity. against the act. animal. exchange and again to exchange’. and the exchange thereof shall be holy’.