## Temurah Daf 26a

###### Temurah 26a:1
[Temurah 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״תָּחוּל זוֹ״ וְאַחַר כָּךְ ״תָּחוּל זוֹ״ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosei, says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says,** with regard to the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei: **Everyone concedes in** a case **where one says:** The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering **will take effect and afterward** the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering **will take effect.** In this case, **everyone agrees** that one **attends** only to **the first statement,** i.e., the sanctity of the burnt offering takes effect but the sanctity of the peace offering does not take effect.


###### Temurah 26a:2
[Temurah 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:2)

״לֹא תָּחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלְתָה זוֹ״ — תַּרְוַויְיהוּ קָדְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, everyone agrees that in a case where one says: Consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering **shall not take effect unless** the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering **shall** also **take effect,** the animal is **consecrated** as **both** a burnt offering and a peace offering.


###### Temurah 26a:3
[Temurah 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:3)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ, דְּאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״, וְאָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּאוֹמֵר ״תָּחוּל זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תָּחוּל זוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei **disagree only with regard to** a case **such as** the one in **our mishna, where** one **said:** This animal is **the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering. As Rabbi Meir holds: Since** if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, **he should have said: The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering, but** instead **he said: The substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, he is** considered **like one who says:** The consecration of this animal as a substitute for a burnt offering **will take effect and afterward** the consecration of this animal as a substitute for a peace offering **will take effect.** Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir only the first sanctity takes effect; the second sanctity cannot take effect because the animal is already consecrated.


###### Temurah 26a:4
[Temurah 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:4)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר, אִי אָמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קְדוֹשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei holds** that from the outset he intended for both sanctities to take effect, and he did not say: **The substitute of the burnt offering and the peace offering,** because he reasoned that **if he said** that, one **would say** that he intends for the animal to be **consecrated** with two sanctities, half as a substitution of the burnt offering and half as a substitution of the peace offering. **And** if so, the animal **cannot be sacrificed** in the Temple, because it is impossible to sacrifice half the animal as one type of offering and half as another type of offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei **teaches us** that when he says: The substitute of the burnt offering the substitute of the peace offering, he intends for the animal to be both entirely a burnt offering and entirely a peace offering, as he mistakenly thinks that such an animal can be sacrificed in the Temple. But since he intended for both types of sanctity to take effect, the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering.


###### Temurah 26a:5
[Temurah 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״בְּהֵמָה זוֹ חֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — כּוּלָּהּ תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב, וְתִימָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּבִדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of one who had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and **he said** with regard to one of his non-sacred animals: **This animal, half of it is the substitute of the burnt offering, and half of it is the substitute of the peace offering,** that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering and is therefore **entirely sacrificed as a burnt offering.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** It is left to **graze until it becomes blemished, and** then **it is sold, and** the owner **brings a substitute burnt offering with the payment for half** the animal **and a substitute peace offering with the payment for half** the animal.


###### Temurah 26a:6
[Temurah 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּון מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ רַבָּנַן! כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָתָנֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset,** then **since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously, his statement stands,** and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. The Gemara objects: The opinion of **Rabbi Yosei is identical to** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Yosei taught the entire** *baraita*, and the opinion of the Rabbis in the *baraita* is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion.


###### Temurah 26a:7
[Temurah 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:7)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״בְּהֵמָה, חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת״ — כּוּלָּהּ תִּיקְרַב עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: In a case where one says: **This animal, half of it** is designated as **a burnt offering and half of it** is designated as **a sin offering,** Rabbi Meir holds that we attend only to the first statement that he uttered, and therefore half of the animal becomes consecrated as a burnt offering. Since the animal cannot live if half of its body were removed, the sanctity spreads to the entire animal and **it is sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Temurah 26a:8
[Temurah 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:8)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תָּמוּת, וְשָׁוִין בְּאוֹמֵר ״חֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה״ שֶׁתָּמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says:** Both sanctities take effect, and as an animal cannot be sacrificed as two offerings, **it must** be left to **die.** The *baraita* adds: **And** Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei **agree** in a case where **one says: Half** of this animal is designated as **a sin offering and half of it** is designated as **a burnt offering, that** the animal **must** be left to **die.**


###### Temurah 26a:9
[Temurah 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:9)

שָׁוִין — מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: That case with regard to which the *baraita* states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei **agree, who is** conceding to whom? Clearly **Rabbi Meir** concedes to Rabbi Yosei that in that case the *halakha* is that the animal must be left to die. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that Rabbi Meir concedes in that case? Just as in the first case of the *baraita* where one mentioned the burnt offering first and the sin offering second, Rabbi Meir holds that only the first expression takes effect, so too if one mentioned the sin offering first and the burnt offering second, only the first expression takes effect; this means that the animal is a sin offering, and therefore it must be left to die, as he is not obligated to bring a sin offering.


###### Temurah 26a:10
[Temurah 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:10)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָאו מִשּׁוּם ״תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן״, אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — חַטָּאת מְעוֹרֶבֶת קְרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the ruling of the *baraita* is necessary, **lest you say: If it hadn’t taught us** the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the latter case, **I would say** that **the reason for** the ruling **of Rabbi Meir** in the first clause of the mishna **is not that** we **attend** only to **the first statement. Rather,** I would say that **this is** Rabbi Meir’s **reason:** In a case of the sanctity of **a sin offering** that is **mixed** with another sanctity in the same animal, the animal **is sacrificed,** and that is the reason Rabbi Meir rules that the animal is sacrificed as a burnt offering despite the fact that the sanctity of a sin offering is also mixed with it.


###### Temurah 26a:11
[Temurah 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:11)

וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּי אָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת״, וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה״, קְרֵיבָה — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if that is Rabbi Meir’s reasoning, then **even if one said: Half** of this animal is designated as **a sin offering, and then said: Half of it** is designated as **a burnt offering,** the animal **is sacrificed.** Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us that** this is **not** the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Rather, his ruling is due to the principle that we attend only to the first statement, and therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei agree in the latter clause of the *baraita* that the animal must be left to die.


###### Temurah 26a:12
[Temurah 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:12)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אָמַר ״בְּהֵמָה זוֹ חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ שְׁלָמִים״ — קְדוֹשָׁה, וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: In the case of **one who said: This animal, half of it** is designated as **a burnt offering and half of it** is designated as **a peace offering,** the animal **is consecrated but is not sacrificed.** The animal grazes until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal. This animal **renders** a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for consecrated as **a substitute, and its substitute** is treated **like it,** i.e., it is not sacrificed; rather, it grazes until it becomes blemished, and it is then sold, and the owner brings a burnt offering with the money of half the animal and a peace offering with the money of half the animal.


###### Temurah 26a:13
[Temurah 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:13)

מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, פְּשִׁיטָא דִּקְדוֹשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion is the *baraita* taught? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who holds one accountable for both expressions that he uttered. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that Rabbi Yosei holds **that** in that case the animal is **consecrated but is not sacrificed?** Why is it necessary to teach this?


###### Temurah 26a:14
[Temurah 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:14)

תְּמוּרָתָהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נְהִי דְּהִיא לָא קָרְבָה — תְּמוּרָתָהּ תִּקְרַב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. מַאי שְׁנָא הִיא דְּלָא קָרְבָה — דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה, תְּמוּרָתָהּ נָמֵי מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה קָאָתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** for the *baraita* to teach that **its substitute** is also not sacrificed. **Lest you say: Granted that** the animal **itself is not sacrificed,** but **its substitute is sacrificed,** therefore the *baraita* **teaches us** that the substitute is also not sacrificed. The Gemara explains the ruling of the *baraita*: **What is different** about the animal **itself, that it is not sacrificed?** It is not sacrificed **because its sanctity is deferred** from the altar, since it is neither entirely a burnt offering nor fully a peace offering. **So too its substitute,** whose sanctity **comes from the force of deferred sanctity,** as it was the substitution of an animal whose sanctity was deferred, may not be sacrificed either.


###### Temurah 26a:15
[Temurah 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/26a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִים, הִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ אַחֶרֶת וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ — קְדוֹשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **an animal** that belongs **to two partners,** if one of the partners **consecrated his half** of the animal, **and then he acquired the other half** of the animal from his partner **and consecrated it,** the animal **is consecrated but is not sacrificed.** When he originally consecrated his half of the animal, the animal was not fit for sacrifice, as only half of it was consecrated. Although the animal is now fully consecrated, it can never again become fit for sacrifice, since it was once disqualified. And this animal **renders** a non-sacred animal that it is exchanged for it consecrated as **a substitute, and its substitute**