## Temurah Daf 13a

###### Temurah 13a:1
[Temurah 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:1)

שָׁלֹשׁ שָׂדוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי מַעֲנוֹת. וְכַמָּה מְלֹא מַעֲנֶה? מֵאָה אַמָּה, כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַחוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַקֶּבֶר — עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס מְלֹא מַעֲנֶה מֵאָה אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A *beit haperas* extends over **three fields,** the field that was plowed and the two adjacent fields in the direction it was plowed. For example, if one plowed the field from north to south, each of the fields adjacent to it on the north and south is also considered a *beit haperas*. **But** whereas the plowed field is a *beit haperas* in its entirety, the two adjacent fields are a *beit haperas* only to the extent of **two furrows,** one furrow on each side. **And how much** is the **full** length of **a furrow [*ma’ana*]?** It is **one hundred cubits, as it is taught** in a mishna (*Oholot* 17:1): **One who plows** a field containing **a grave,** and who may have strewn the bones throughout the field, **renders** the field **a *beit haperas*** up to **the full** length of **a furrow,** which is **one hundred cubits.**


###### Temurah 13a:2
[Temurah 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:2)

וְאֵין תְּרוּמָה אַחַר תְּרוּמָה כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁתָּרְמוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: תְּרוּמַת שְׁנֵיהֶם תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And there is no *teruma* after *teruma*.** Once one designates produce from his crop as *teruma*, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as *teruma*, it is not *teruma*. The Gemara explains: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 3:3): In the case of **joint** owners of produce **who separated *teruma* one after the other, Rabbi Eliezer says: The *teruma* of both of them is *teruma*,** as each is considered to have separated from his share of the produce.


###### Temurah 13a:3
[Temurah 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:3)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין תְּרוּמַת שְׁנֵיהֶם תְּרוּמָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִם תָּרַם הָרִאשׁוֹן כַּשִּׁיעוּר — אֵין תְּרוּמַת הַשֵּׁנִי תְּרוּמָה, וְאִם לֹא תָּרַם כַּשִּׁיעוּר — תְּרוּמַת הַשֵּׁנִי תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says: The *teruma* of neither of them is *teruma*.** Since each separated *teruma* independently, it is clear that neither accepts the separation of the other, and therefore neither is valid. **And the Rabbis say: If the first one separated *teruma* of** the correct **measure,** i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce, the produce is thereby tithed, and therefore **the *teruma* of the second is not *teruma*; but if** the first **did not separate *teruma* of** the correct **measure,** and he separated too little, **the *teruma* of the second is *teruma*.**


###### Temurah 13a:4
[Temurah 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:4)

וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּתְמוּרָתוֹ״, וְלֹא תְּמוּרַת תְּמוּרָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And a substitute** animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal **does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute;** rather, it remains non-sacred. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason,** i.e., the source for this *halakha* in the Torah? **The verse states:** “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it **and that for which it is substituted** shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). The verse teaches that the *halakha* of substitution applies only to a consecrated animal and its substitute, **but not the substitute of its substitute.**


###### Temurah 13a:5
[Temurah 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:5)

וְאֵין הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ — הוּא וְלֹא וָלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the offspring** born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself **does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** The Gemara explains: The reason for this is **that the verse states:** “Then both **it** and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that only **it,** a consecrated animal, **but not** its **offspring,** renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.


###### Temurah 13a:6
[Temurah 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:6)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד. וְרַבָּנַן: לְרַבּוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda reasons **that** when **the verse states: “Shall be** sacred,” this serves **to include the offspring.** The Gemara adds: **And** as for **the Rabbis,** who hold that one cannot substitute for the offspring of a consecrated animal, they maintain that this phrase serves **to include** one who substitutes **unwittingly,** so that the substitution is valid **as** if he had done so **intentionally.**


###### Temurah 13a:7
[Temurah 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה. הַצִּיבּוּר וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר״. יָחִיד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין הַצִּבּוּר וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The birds** sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, **and the meal offerings do not render** non-sacred items exchanged for them **substitutes, as only** the term **“an animal” is stated** with regard to substitution, in the verse: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal” (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to **the community or** to **partners does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute, as it is stated** in the same verse: **“He shall neither exchange it nor substitute** it.” One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that **an individual renders** a non-sacred animal **a substitute, but the community and partners do not render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute.** Items **consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render** non-sacred items exchanged for them **substitutes.**


###### Temurah 13a:8
[Temurah 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בַּכְּלָל הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said:** The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The **animal tithe was** included **in** the **category** of all offerings, **and why was it** singled **out** in the verse: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:32–33)?


###### Temurah 13a:9
[Temurah 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:9)

לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר — קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, יָצְאוּ קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר; וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר — קׇרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ, יָצְאוּ קׇרְבָּנוֹת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, **to tell you: Just as** the animal **tithe** is brought exclusively as **an individual offering,** so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, **excluding communal offerings** and the offerings of partners from the *halakha* of substitution. **And just as** the animal **tithe** is **an offering** sacrificed on the **altar,** so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, **excluding** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance** from the *halakha* of substitution.


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״קׇרְבָּן״ — מִי שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ ״קׇרְבָּן״, יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְרְאוּ ״קׇרְבָּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** According to the mishna, items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that items **consecrated for Temple maintenance render** non-sacred items exchanged for them **substitutes.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if it is an animal of which men bring **an offering** to the Lord…he shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad” (Leviticus 27:9–10). This teaches that the *halakha* of substitution applies to **that which is called an offering, excluding** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not called an offering.**


###### Temurah 13a:11
[Temurah 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:11)

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִי ״קׇרְבָּן״ — שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ ״קׇרְבָּן״, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** are items consecrated for Temple maintenance **not** called offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: “Or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:3–4). **If** the verse had mentioned just the word **“offering,” I** would **derive** that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies **even** to items **consecrated for Temple maintenance, as** they too **are called offerings, as is stated in the matter** of the spoils of the war against Midian: **“And we have brought the Lord’s offering,** what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.


###### Temurah 13a:12
[Temurah 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:12)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ — כׇּל הַבָּא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא לְפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ. אַלְמָא אִיקְּרוּ ״קׇרְבָּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Therefore **the verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it”** (Leviticus 17:4), to teach that **for any** item **that** is fit to **come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,** i.e., that is fit to be sacrificed, **one is liable for it due to** the prohibition against **slaughtering offerings outside** of the Temple courtyard. **And** by contrast, **for any** animal **that** is **not** fit to **come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it due to** the prohibition against **slaughtering offerings outside** of the Temple courtyard. **Evidently,** as a verse is necessary to exclude items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such items **are** generally **called an offering,** contrary to the first *baraita* cited.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבָּנַן. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיקְּרִי ״קׇרְבָּן״, לְרַבָּנַן לָא אִיקְּרִי ״קׇרְבָּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said:** This is **not difficult. This** second *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** whereas **that** first *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** items consecrated for Temple maintenance **are** in fact **called an offering,** and therefore in the mishna he derives that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are excluded from the *halakhot* of substitution from the juxtaposition with the animal tithe, not from word “offering.” **According to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** items consecrated for Temple maintenance **are not called an offering,** and they therefore derive the *halakha* from the word “offering.”


###### Temurah 13a:14
[Temurah 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:14)

וְלָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳״! ״קׇרְבַּן ה׳״ אִיקְּרִי, ״קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ לָא אִיקְּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of the Rabbis, are items consecrated for Temple maintenance **not** called an offering? **But isn’t it written: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering”** (Numbers 31:50)? The Gemara answers: These items **are called: “The Lord’s offering,”** but **they are not called: “An offering to the Lord,”** which is used only with regard to offerings sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Temurah 13a:15
[Temurah 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָעוְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners are not included in the *halakha* of substitution. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the animal tithe: **“He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute it;** and if he substitute it at all, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33). **Why is** the issue of substitution **stated** here in connection to the animal tithe? **Isn’t it already stated** earlier: **“He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad,** or bad for good, and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10)?


###### Temurah 13a:16
[Temurah 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:16)

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ״, מַשְׁמַע קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, קׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר, וְקׇרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ וְקׇרְבַּן בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Since it is stated: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it,”** the verse apparently **indicates** that all types of offering are included, whether **an individual offering** or **a communal offering, and** whether it is **an offering** sacrificed on the **altar or an offering consecrated for Temple maintenance.** Therefore, **the verse states** with regard to the animal tithe: **“He shall not inquire.”**


###### Temurah 13a:17
[Temurah 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/13a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בַּכְּלָל הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְקׇרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ, וְדָבָר שֶׁבָּא בְּחוֹבָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת — אַף כֹּל קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְקׇרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ, וְדָבָר שֶׁבָּא בְּחוֹבָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said** in explanation: The animal **tithe was** included **in** the **category** of all offerings, **and why was it** singled **out?** It is **to tell you: Just as** the animal **tithe** is **an individual offering, and an offering** sacrificed on the **altar, and** it is **an item that comes** only **as an obligation,** not as a gift offering, **and** it is **an item that is not** brought **in partnership,** but only by an individual, **so too, all** offerings that render their substitutes sacred must be **an individual offering, and an offering** sacrificed on the **altar, and** it must be **an item that comes** only **as an obligation,**