## Temurah Daf 10a

###### Temurah 10a:1
[Temurah 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:1)

אוֹ דִילְמָא: כׇּל אוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה אֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** we say that if one redeems **any** animal that possesses the **same sanctity** as the original **he does not add** an additional **one-fifth.**


###### Temurah 10a:2
[Temurah 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:2)

וְאִם תִּימָּצֵא לוֹמַר הָדֵין גּוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר], כֵּיוָן דִּבְאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה קָאֵים [אֵינוֹ] מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, אֶלָּא נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה לְעוֹלָה — מַהוּ? כִּי [אֵינוֹ] מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה, אֲבָל בִּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת — לָא? אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף הוּא — [אֵינוֹ] מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that with regard to **this other body, since it maintains the same** type of **sanctity** as the initial animal, one **does not add one-fifth** when redeeming it, **but** what of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another, and this** first animal was found and **was consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering? What is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **when** one **does not add** an additional **one-fifth,** that is only **with regard to the same body with the same** type of **sanctity, but** in the case **of another** type of **sanctity** the exemption does **not** apply? **Or perhaps** we say that **since it is the same body,** one **does not add one-fifth.** The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Temurah 10a:3
[Temurah 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:3)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ (מכפר) [מִתְכַּפֵּר] מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ? אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ״ — מַקְדִּישׁ, וְלֹא מִתְכַּפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** If one person consecrates his animal to be used as an offering by another, does the **one who consecrates** it **add one-fifth** when he redeems it, **or** does the **one atoning** by means of the offering **add one-fifth?** Who is considered the owner of the offering? **Rava said** that **the verse states: “And if he that consecrated it will redeem his house,** then he shall add the fifth part of the money” (Leviticus 27:15). It may be inferred from here that only the **one who consecrates** the item adds one-fifth, **but not** the **one for whom** the offering **atones.**


###### Temurah 10a:4
[Temurah 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:4)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַקְדִּישׁ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, אוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה? אָמַר רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, מָצִינוּ צִיבּוּר וְשׁוּתָּפִין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁוּוֹ שָׁלִיחַ לְאַקְדּוֹשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** If one person consecrates an animal to be used as an offering by another, can the **one who consecrates** it **render** another animal **a substitute** for it, **or** can the **one achieving atonement** through it **render a substitute** for it? **Rava said: If** it were **so,** that the one who consecrates it can render a substitute for it, **we** would **find** a case where the **community or partners can render a substitute** for their consecrated animal, **for example where they appointed an agent to consecrate** an animal for them. The mishna (13a) states that one cannot substitute for consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners. By contrast, in this case, since only one person consecrated it, he would be able to substitute for it, contrary to the mishna.


###### Temurah 10a:5
[Temurah 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:5)

וְעוֹד, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ לַה׳ עַל נִזְרוֹ מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״, וְכִי נָזִיר נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד? הָא כֵּיצַד? ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ לַה׳ עַל נִזְרוֹ״ — שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, ״מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״ — שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ לוֹ אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav Huna says:** The Sages **taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, **and of his offering unto the Lord for his naziriteship, besides that for which his means suffice;** according to his vow which he vows” (Numbers 6:21). **But is** the offering of **a nazirite judged according to his means?** The offerings of a nazirite are fixed by the Torah. **How** is it possible to understand **this** clause: “Besides that for which his means suffice”? Rather, the clause **“his offering unto the Lord for his naziriteship”** is referring to a case **where he separated** an offering **from his own** animals, whereas the clause **“besides that for which his means suffice”** is referring to a case **where others separated** the offering **for him.** This teaches that designation by others is effective.


###### Temurah 10a:6
[Temurah 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:6)

לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא לְעִנְיַן כַּפָּרָה — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמִכַּפַּר לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תְּמוּרָה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף כְּשֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ לוֹ אֲחֵרִים — עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בָּתַר מִתְכַּפֵּר אָזְלִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what *halakha*** is this *baraita* stated? **If we say** that it is **with regard to the matter of atonement,** and it is teaching that a nazirite can atone even by means of an offering designated for him by others, isn’t it **obvious that** such an offering can **atone for him?** Once it is his offering, he can certainly use it. **Rather,** the ruling of this *baraita* must be stated **with regard to substitution, and this** is what it **is saying: Even** in a case **where others separated** the offering **for him,** he alone can **render a substitute** for it. **Conclude from** this verse that **we follow** the **one for whom** the offering **atones,** and only he can effect substitution for the offering.


###### Temurah 10a:7
[Temurah 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:7)

לָא לְעִנְיַן תְּמוּרָה, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ מַתָּנָה דְּקָא יָהֲבִין לֵיהּ — אִי לָאו דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הוּא ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ מִדִּידֵיהּ הוּא דְּמִכַּפַּר, מִדַּאֲחֵרִים לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *baraita* is **not** referring **to substitution,** but to the matter of atonement. **And that which is difficult for you,** that it is obvious that the nazirite can atone by bringing an offering consecrated by another, as **they have given it to him as a gift,** this is in fact not obvious. **Had the Merciful One not included** an offering received from another by writing the clause **“besides that for which his means suffice,” I would say** that **it is a Torah edict** expressed in the term **“his offering,”** that a nazirite can **atone** only with an offering consecrated **from his own** animals, **but not** through one received **from** the animals **of others.** Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that he can atone even with an offering received from others.


###### Temurah 10a:8
[Temurah 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:8)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having failed to resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma, the Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about this** matter? The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a proof from that **which Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **one consecrates** his animal as an offering for someone else’s atonement, and he subsequently redeems the animal, **he adds one-fifth** to its value as the owner. **But** only the **one for whom** the offering **atones** can **render a substitute** for it. This resolves the dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama.


###### Temurah 10a:9
[Temurah 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:9)

תּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים — טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֶת כׇּל מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ... וְנָתַתָּ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement continues: And if one **separates *teruma* from his** produce **to** exempt the produce **of others,** so that the other’s produce will be permitted in consumption, the **benefit of discretion is his.** He is entitled to determine which priest receives the *teruma*. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this? **The verse states:** “When you have made an end of tithing **all the tithe of your produce** in the third year, which is the year of tithing, **and have given** it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow” (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that the one actually giving the produce chooses to whom to give it.


###### Temurah 10a:10
[Temurah 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין מְמִירִין, לֹא אֵבָרִין בְּעוּבָּרִין, וְלֹא עוּבָּרִין בְּאֵבָרִים, וְלֹא עוּבָּרִין וְאֵבָרִים בִּשְׁלֵימִים, וְלֹא שְׁלֵימִים בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One does not substitute** non-sacred **limbs for** consecrated **fetuses,** i.e., if one says that a certain limb of a non-sacred animal is substituted for a fetus in the womb of a consecrated animal, it is not consecrated. **And** likewise, one does **not** substitute non-sacred **fetuses for** consecrated **limbs. And** one substitutes **neither** non-sacred **limbs nor fetuses for whole** consecrated animals **nor** non-sacred **whole** animals **for** consecrated limbs or fetuses.


###### Temurah 10a:11
[Temurah 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:11)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְמִירִין אֵבָרִים בִּשְׁלֵימִים, אֲבָל לֹא שְׁלֵימִים בָּהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ — כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, אַף כְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ״ תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ תְּמוּרָה תַּחְתֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: One substitutes** non-sacred **limbs for whole** consecrated animals, **but not whole** animals **for** consecrated limbs. **Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t** it so **with regard to sacrificial** animals, that if **one says: The** hind **leg of this** animal is **a burnt offering, the entire** animal is **a burnt offering? So too, when he says: The** non-sacred hind **leg of this** animal is **in exchange for that** animal, **the entire** animal is **a substitute in exchange for it.**


###### Temurah 10a:12
[Temurah 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אִתְּמַר, בַּר פְּדָא אָמַר: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עַל עוּבָּרִין, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עַל עוּבָּרִין. וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִקְדִּישׁ חַטָּאת מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה — רָצָה בָּהּ מִתְכַּפֵּר, רָצָה בִּוְולָדָהּ מִתְכַּפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that **Bar Padda says: Fetuses are not imbued with sanctity** if one attempts to consecrate them for sacrifice, and **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fetuses are imbued with sanctity.** The Gemara notes: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** line of **reasoning** in this regard, **as Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In the case of **one who consecrated a pregnant animal** as **a sin offering, and it** later **gave birth,** if **he wishes he may achieve atonement by** sacrificing the mother, and the offspring will be left to graze until it develops a blemish that renders it unfit, whereupon it will be sold and the money is used to purchase a gift burnt offering; and if **he wishes he may achieve atonement through** the animal’s **offspring,** and the mother will be left to graze until it develops a blemish.


###### Temurah 10a:13
[Temurah 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/10a:13)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא — הָתָם הוּא דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** both statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan are **necessary,** despite the fact that both affirm that fetuses may be consecrated. **As, if** Rabbi Yoḥanan had **taught us** only **this first** case, of one who consecrates a fetus by itself, I might say that only **there** is the fetus imbued with sanctity, **as he consecrated**