## Temurah Daf 13b

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

וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** it must be **an item that** is **not** brought **in partnership.**


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

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה יָצָא מַעֲשֵׂר מֵעַתָּה? לִידּוֹן בִּ״תְמוּרַת שְׁמוֹ״ וּבִ״תְמוּרַת גּוּפוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Why was** the animal **tithe** singled **out** of all offerings as subject to substitution **now,** after the *halakha* of substitution was stated in general? It serves **to discuss** a special *halakha* **with regard to** the animal tithe, that of **substitution of its name.** If, when the animals emerge from the pen to be tithed, the one counting them errs and calls the tenth animal the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, they are both sanctified. The animal that actually emerges tenth is the animal tithe, while the eleventh animal is consecrated as a peace offering. **And** since this *halakha* of a substitution of its name applies only to the animal tithe, it is necessary **to** teach that the general *halakha* of **the substitution of its body,** i.e., regular substitution, applies to it as well.


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

לוֹמַר לָךְ: תְּמוּרַת שְׁמוֹ — קְרֵיבָה, תְּמוּרַת גּוּפוֹ — אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה; תְּמוּרַת שְׁמוֹ — נִגְאֶלֶת, תְּמוּרַת גּוּפוֹ — אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, the verse **tells you** other *halakhot* unique to the animal tithe: An animal that is **the substitute of the name of** an animal tithe is **sacrificed** upon the altar as a peace offering, whereas **the substitute of its body is not sacrificed** at all. But for all other offerings, substitutes hold the same status as the animal for which they were substituted. Another difference is that **the substitute of the name of** an animal tithe is **redeemed** when it develops a blemish, like a peace offering, and the proceeds of the sale belong to the Temple treasury, whereas **the substitute of its body is not redeemed,** as it is stated with regard to the animal tithe: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33).


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

תְּמוּרַת גּוּפוֹ — חָלָה עַל דָּבָר הָרָאוּי וְעַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי, וּתְמוּרַת שְׁמוֹ — אֵינָהּ חָלָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר הָרָאוּי בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, the sanctity of **the substitution of the body of** an animal tithe **takes effect upon** both **an item that is fit** for sacrifice upon the altar **and upon an item that is unfit** for sacrifice, e.g., a blemished animal, as the sanctity of the animal tithe can apply even to a blemished animal, **but the substitution of its name takes effect only upon an item that is fit** for sacrifice. If the animal that was mistakenly called the tenth is blemished, it is not consecrated.


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

אָמְרִי: מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תְּמוּרַת שְׁמוֹ, אִיגְּרוֹעֵי אִיגְּרַע? אִין, דְּאָמְרִינַן: מַאי דְּרַבִּי — רַבִּי, וּמַאי דְּלָא רַבִּי — לָא רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Simply **because the Merciful One includes** a unique *halakha* with regard to the animal tithe, **that it has the substitution of its name,** would one assume that it **is diminished,** and the *halakha* of regular substitution does not apply to it? The Gemara answers: **Yes,** one can make such a claim, **as we say:** That **which** the verse **included** with regard to a particular *halakha*, **it included, and** that **which it did not include, it did not include.** Since the passage initially addresses substitution of name solely with regard to the animal tithe, one could assume that this is the only substitution that applies to it.


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

וְהָא מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה דָּבָר הַבָּא לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ, וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא חִידּוּשׁוֹ בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where would this be derived,** that in this case we should assume only that which is specifically mentioned? **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** This is derived **since** this is a case of **a matter,** i.e., the animal tithe, **where** the Torah **comes to discuss a novel matter,** i.e., substitution of name, **and** as a rule, in such cases the object of discussion **has only its novelty,** and one cannot infer the applicability of additional principles. It was therefore necessary for a verse to teach that substitution of body, which applies to all other offerings, applies to the animal tithe as well.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַבָּא בְּחוֹבָה — עוֹלַת חוֹבָה הִיא דְּעָבְדָה תְּמוּרָה, הָא עוֹלַת נְדָבָה — לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עוֹלַת נְדָבָה נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּקַבְּלַהּ עֲלֵיהּ — עַבְדַּהּ תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who said** earlier that the *halakha* of substitution applies only to offerings **that come as an obligation,** should one conclude that **it is** only **an obligatory burnt offering that renders** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute, but a voluntary burnt offering does not?** Rava **said to him: A voluntary burnt offering also** falls under the category of obligatory offerings. **Since he accepted upon himself** to bring a voluntary burnt offering, it is considered an obligation for him, and therefore it **renders** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute.**


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

וְלֹא נִצְרְכָה, אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava adds: **And** this qualification mentioned by Rabbi Shimon **is necessary only to** exclude **a burnt offering that came from surplus** funds. For example, if one set aside a certain sum of money for a sin offering or a guilt offering, and after purchasing his animal some of the money remained, he must purchase a burnt offering with that money. The *halakha* of substitution does not apply to such an animal.


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

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר אָזְלִי — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא עָבְדָה תְּמוּרָה, הָא אֵין תְּמוּרָה בְּצִבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The Sages disputed the use of surplus money. Some say that it must go toward the purchase of communal burnt offerings, whereas Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the owner himself must purchase a voluntary burnt offering. **What** does Rabbi Shimon **hold** in this regard? **If he holds in accordance with the one who said** that these **surplus** funds **go toward communal gift offerings,** then it is **obvious that** this offering **does not render a substitute, as** it is explicitly taught that **there is no substitution with regard to a communal** offering. Rabbi Shimon’s statement would then be redundant.


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

אֶלָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת יָחִיד אָזְלִי. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ בְּהֶדְיָא דְּעָבְדָה תְּמוּרָה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say that **Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the one who said** that these **surplus** funds **go toward** the **voluntary** burnt offering **of an individual.** But this too is problematic, as **whom did you hear** who holds **this reasoning?** It is **Rabbi Eliezer,** but **we heard** that Rabbi Eliezer **explicitly** stated **that** such an animal **renders** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A burnt offering that came from surplus** funds **renders** a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as **a substitute.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְאִיהוּ סָבַר: אֵין עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer **with regard to one** matter, that surplus funds go toward an individual voluntary burnt offering, **and disagrees with him with regard to** another matter, **as Rabbi Eliezer maintains** that **a burnt offering that came from surplus** funds **renders** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute, and he,** Rabbi Shimon, **maintains** that it **does not render** it **a substitute.**


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

אִי הָכִי, דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: הִפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ, וְהֵמִיר בּוֹ, וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה לְעוֹלָה — מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר וְיָמִיר בּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so,** consider **that dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin:** If one **separated** an animal as **a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement, and he effected substitution for it, and** then that original guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which he subsequently lost, and the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing yet **another** animal as **a guilt offering; and** then **this** lost animal was found and **consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering, what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **he can again effect substitution for it?** In this case, the animal in question is a burnt offering that came from surplus funds.


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

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הָא אָמְרַתְּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ: עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת אֵין עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In accordance with whose** opinion was this dilemma raised? **If we say** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, you said** that **Rabbi Shimon maintains** that **a burnt offering that came from surplus** funds **does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** There would therefore be no dilemma at all. This is problematic, because the dilemma assumes that one cannot effect substitution twice for the same animal, which is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


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

רַבִּי אָבִין הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: אִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ תַּנָּא דְּקָאֵי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין, וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר וְיָמִיר בּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **this is the dilemma that Rabbi Avin was raising: If a *tanna* is found who holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who said** that **one cannot effect substitution** once **and again effect substitution** for the same consecrated animal, **and he** also **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who said** that **a burnt offering that came from surplus** funds **renders** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute, what is** his opinion as to **whether one can again effect substitution with** the animal in question?


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

בִּשְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As explained earlier (9b), Rabbi Avin’s dilemma was first posed **with regard to two bodies,** i.e., two different animals, **and one** type of **sanctity,** e.g., in a case where one separated an animal as a guilt offering, and he effected substitution for it, and the animal he separated as a guilt offering developed a blemish and he redeemed it with another animal, which assumed the same status of a guilt offering. **What** is the *halakha* as to whether one can substitute for this replacement? Do we say that since it is a different animal from the one for which he initially effected substitution, the second substitution is effective? Or perhaps, since it possesses the same sanctity as the original animal, one cannot effect substitution for it.


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

וְאִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר: קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת (אוֹ לָא), אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וְגוּף אֶחָד, מַאי? תִּיבְּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** then Rabbi Avin further asked: **If you say** that in the above case one cannot effect substitution for the animal, perhaps this is only because the two animals possess **one sanctity. But** in a case of **two sanctities and one body, what** is the *halakha*? For example, if one consecrated a guilt offering and effected substitution for it, and he subsequently lost it and atoned using another animal, and he then found it again, such that the original animal must now be consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, does one say that since the animal now possesses a different sanctity he can effect further substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: According to that *tanna*, **the dilemma remains** unresolved **[*tiba’ei*].**


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

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַכֹּל מְמִירִין.**