## Temurah Daf 26b

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

כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. שְׁמַע מִינָּה תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינָּה קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים (נִדְחָה) [מְדַחָה].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
is treated **like it,** as it too is consecrated but not sacrificed. **Conclude three** *halakhot* **from this** statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Conclude from it** that an animal that was consecrated with a **sanctity** that inheres in its **value is deferred.** One who consecrates only half an animal has consecrated that animal with a sanctity that inheres in its value but not with an inherent sanctity, as the animal cannot be sacrificed.


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

וּשְׁמַע מִינָּה, בַּעֲלֵי (מוּמִין) [חַיִּים] נִדְחִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דִּיחוּי מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָוֵי דִּיחוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** second, **conclude from it** that not only can an offering that has already been slaughtered become permanently deferred from the altar, but also **living animals** that cannot be sacrificed for whatever reason **are** permanently **deferred. And** finally, **conclude from it that deferral at the outset,** when the animal is first consecrated, **is** considered a permanent **disqualification.** Not only is an animal that was fit to be sacrificed when initially consecrated and only later disqualified permanently deferred, but the same applies to an animal that was disqualified from the outset, when it was initially consecrated, e.g., if only half of it was initially consecrated.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר״ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עוֹלָה קְרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the consecration of an animal with two sanctities, **Abaye said: Everyone concedes** that in a case **where one said: Half** the animal is designated as **a burnt offering and half of it** is designated as an animal **tithe, everyone agrees** that this animal is consecrated and **sacrificed** entirely as **a burnt offering,** not as a tithed animal. The animal tithe is consecrated when it is the tenth of a group of animals that are passed underneath a rod, which is not the case here.


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

הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרָה וְחֶצְיָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר״, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But in a case **where one said** with regard to his non-sacred animal: **Half of** this animal is designated as **a substitute and half of it** is designated as an animal **tithe,** which consecration takes effect? Both consecrations are invalid: Consecration as a substitute is valid when a consecrated animal is standing before the substitute, which is not the case here, and consecration as an animal tithe is valid through the process of passing a group of animals underneath a rod. **What** is the status of the animal in this case?


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

תְּמוּרָה קְרֵיבָה, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַעֲשֵׂר קְרֵיבָה, שֶׁכֵּן מַקְדִּישׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the animal **sacrificed as a substitute, as** the sanctity of substitution **applies to all sacrificial** animals? **Or perhaps** the animal **is sacrificed as** an animal **tithe, as** the consecration of the animal tithe is more comprehensive, since if one mistakenly counted the ninth animal to pass underneath the rod as the tenth or the eleventh as the tenth, **he consecrates** those animals that passed **before and after** the tenth. The Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ״, ״תְּמוּרַת זוֹ״, ״חֲלִיפַת זוֹ״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה. ״זוֹ מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ״ — אֵין זוֹ תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: **This** non-sacred animal **is hereby in place of that** consecrated animal, or if he said: It is **the substitute of that** consecrated animal, or if one said: It is **the exchange for that** consecrated animal, **that** non-sacred animal **is a substitute.** If he said: **This** consecrated animal **is desacralized,** with its sanctity transferred **to that** non-sacred animal, **that** non-sacred animal **is not a substitute.**


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

וְאִם הָיָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּעַל מוּם — יוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the consecrated** animal **was blemished,** and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized **and assumes non-sacred** status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner **is required to conduct** an appraisal to ascertain the relative **value** of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.


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

**גְּמָ׳** לְמֵימְרָא דְּתַחַת לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי הוּא, וּרְמִינְהוּ: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אָמַר ״חֲלִיפַת זוֹ״ ״תְּמוּרַת זוֹ״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. The Gemara asks: Is this **to say that** the phrase: **In place of [*taḥat*], is a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another, i.e., the transference of substitution? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: In a case where one’s non-sacred animal was standing before **a consecrated animal** belonging to **Temple maintenance,** and **he said:** This non-sacred animal is hereby **the exchange for that** consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the **substitute of that** consecrated animal, **he has not said anything,** as these terms indicate the transfer of sanctity via substitution, and substitution does not apply to consecrated animals belonging to the Temple maintenance.


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

״תַּחַת זוֹ״, ״מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ״ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby **in place of [*taḥat*] that** consecrated animal, or if he said: This consecrated animal is **desacralized,** with its sanctity transferred **to that** non-sacred animal, **his statement takes effect,** as these terms indicate desacralization, and a consecrated animal belonging to the Temple maintenance can be desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a non-sacred animal.


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִיתְּפוֹסֵי הִיא, מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: **And if it enters your mind** that the term *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another, and therefore it effects substitution, as taught in the mishna, **what is different** in **the first clause** of the *baraita*, which states that the terms exchange and substitute are terms that do not effect desacralization, **and what is different** in **the latter clause** of the *baraita*, which teaches that the term *taḥat* effects desacralization despite the fact that it indicates substitution?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״תַּחַת״ מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִיתְּפוֹסֵי וְלִישָּׁנָא דְּאַחוֹלֵי. לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי, דִּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said,** in response: **You find** that the term: **In place of [*taḥat*], is** sometimes **a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another, **and** it **is** sometimes **a term that** indicates **desacralization.** It is **a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another, **as it is written:**