## Temurah Daf 27a

###### Temurah 27a:1
[Temurah 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:1)

״וְאִם תַּחְתֶּיהָ תַּעֲמוֹד הַבַּהֶרֶת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“But if the white leprous spot stays in its place [*taḥteha*]”** (Leviticus 13:23). In this verse, the word “*taḥteha*” indicates that the white leprous spot remains in its place. This usage of the word is fitting for substitution, since when sanctity is transferred by substitution from a consecrated animal to a non-sacred animal, the sanctity of the consecrated animal remains in place, despite the fact that the non-sacred animal is also consecrated.


###### Temurah 27a:2
[Temurah 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:2)

דְּאַחוֹלֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״תַּחַת הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת אָבִיא זָהָב״, וְהִלְכָּךְ, גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ דְּעָבְדִין תְּמוּרָה — לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי הוּא, גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת דְּלָא עָבְדִין תְּמוּרָה — לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַחוֹלֵי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Yet *taḥat* is also a term **that** indicates **desacralization, as it is written: “In place of [*taḥat*] brass I will bring gold,** and in place of iron I will bring silver, and in place of wood brass, and in place of stones iron” (Isaiah 60:17). In this verse, *taḥat* means replacement, which is what occurs in desacralization, where one item is replaced by another. **And therefore,** the term should be understood in accordance with the context: **With regard to** animals **consecrated** for sacrifice upon the **altar, which render** a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged **a substitute,** *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another. **With regard to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not render** a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged **a substitute,** *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates **desacralization.**


###### Temurah 27a:3
[Temurah 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַחוֹלֵי הוּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Even** with regard to animals **consecrated** for sacrifice upon the **altar,** which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, **you** can **find** that *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates **desacralization. For example,** in a case **where a consecrated** animal **was blemished** and can be desacralized because it is unfit to be sacrificed, and one placed that consecrated animal next to a non-sacred animal and said: This animal is in place of [*taḥat*] that animal. Although the blemished sacred animal can render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, in this context the term *taḥat* means desacralization.


###### Temurah 27a:4
[Temurah 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַעַל מוּם נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַחוֹלֵי, וּמַשְׁכַּחַת לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי. יָדוֹ אַקּוֹדֶשׁ — חוֹל הָוֵי, יָדוֹ אַחוֹל — קוֹדֶשׁ הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ashi said: Even in** the case of **a blemished** animal, mentioned by Rava, sometimes **you find** that *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates **desacralization and** sometimes **you find** that *taḥat* **is a term that** indicates the **associating** of one sanctity with another. If the owner’s **hand** is resting **on the consecrated** animal and he says: This animal is in place of [*taḥat*] that animal, it **is** a term of **desacralization,** as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is to desacralize the consecrated animal, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal. If the owner’s **hand** is resting **on the non-sacred** animal when he says: This animal is in place of that animal, then *taḥat* **is** a term of substitution, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is for the non-sacred animal to be **consecrated** with the same sanctity as the consecrated animal.


###### Temurah 27a:5
[Temurah 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:5)

בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ בַּעֲלוֹת מוּם, וּשְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין תְּמִימוֹת, וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ תַּחַת אֵלּוּ״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raises a dilemma:** If **there were** standing **before him two sacrificial animals** that **were blemished and two non-sacred animals** that **were unblemished,and,** without placing his hands on any animal, **he says: These** animals **are hereby in place of [*taḥat*] those** animals, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Temurah 27a:6
[Temurah 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:6)

מִי אָמַר לְאַתְפּוֹסֵי וְלָקֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּרָא — לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ הֶיתֵּרָא וְעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: **Did he** intend to **say** *taḥat* **as association,** i.e., to consecrate the two non-sacred animals as substitutes, **and** therefore **he is flogged** two sets of lashes for the two violations of the prohibition against consecrating an animal as a substitute? **Or perhaps,** does one say that since **anywhere that there exists** both **a permitted** and a prohibited manner to perform an action, **a person does not cast aside the permitted** manner **and perform the prohibition?** If so, here too his intention was to desacralize the two blemished animals, and therefore he is not flogged.


###### Temurah 27a:7
[Temurah 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:7)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּרָא לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ וְעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ, וְאַחַת מֵהֶן בַּעֲלַת מוּם, וּשְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין, וְאַחַת מֵהֶן בַּעֲלַת מוּם, וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ תַּחַת אֵלּוּ״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **anywhere that there exists** both **a permitted** and a prohibited manner to perform an action, **a person does not cast aside** the permitted manner **and perform the prohibition,** in a case where **there were** standing **before him two sacrificial animals, one of which was blemished** and one of which was unblemished, **and two non-sacred animals, one of which was blemished** and one of which was unblemished, **and he said: These** animals **are hereby in place of [*taḥat*] those** animals, **what is** the *halakha*? Although he certainly intended to transfer the sanctity of the unblemished sacrificial animal to a non-sacred animal by substitution, it is unclear which of the two non-sacred animals he intended to consecrate as a substitute.


###### Temurah 27a:8
[Temurah 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:8)

מִי אָמַר: תְּמִימָה תַּחַת תְּמִימָה — לְאַתְפּוֹסֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם תַּחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם — לְאַחוֹלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: **Did he** intend to **say** that **the unblemished** non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute **in place of the unblemished** consecrated animal, and with regard to this pairing he intended **to associate** the sanctity by substitution, while **the blemished** non-sacred animal should be consecrated **in place of the blemished** consecrated animal, and for this pairing he intended **to desacralize** the consecrated animal. If so, he is flogged only for the first pairing and not for the second pairing.


###### Temurah 27a:9
[Temurah 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:9)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, תְּמִימָה דְּחוּלִּין תַּחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, בַּעֲלַת מוּם דְּחוּלִּין תַּחַת תְּמִימָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ לָקֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps,** he intended that **the unblemished non-sacred** animal should be consecrated as a substitute **in place of the blemished consecrated** animal, and **the blemished non-sacred** animal should be consecrated as a substitute **in place of the unblemished consecrated** animal, **and** since he intended to perform substitution in both cases he is **flogged for both** pairings.


###### Temurah 27a:10
[Temurah 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:10)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּירָא — לָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, וּלְאַחוֹלֵי הוּא, וְלָא לָקֵי. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ, וְאַחַת מֵהֶן בַּעֲלַת מוּם, וְשָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין תְּמִימוֹת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ תַּחַת אֵלּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **anywhere that there exists** both **a permitted** and a prohibited manner to perform an action, one **does not perform the prohibition,** this would resolve the previous dilemma, as his intention must have been **to desacralize** the blemished consecrated animal, **and** therefore he is **not flogged** two sets of lashes, one can raise the following dilemma: In a case where **there were three sacrificial animals before him, one of which was blemished** while the other two were unblemished, **and three non-sacred animals,** all of which **were unblemished, and he said: These** animals **are hereby in place of [*taḥat*] those** animals, what is the *halakha*?


###### Temurah 27a:11
[Temurah 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:11)

מִי אָמְרִינַן, מִדִּתְמִימוֹת תַּחַת תְּמִימוֹת לְאַתְפּוֹסֵי, תְּמִימוֹת נָמֵי תַּחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְאַתְפּוֹסֵי? אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּירָא לָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, וְהַהִיא בָּתְרָיְיתָא לְאַחוֹלֵי הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: **Do we say** that **since** he intended for **the unblemished** non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes **in place of the unblemished** consecrated animals, i.e., **to associate** their sanctity, **so too** he intended to consecrate **the unblemished** non-sacred animal as a substitute **in place of the blemished** consecrated animal, i.e., **to associate** its sanctity, and he therefore is flogged three sets of lashes? **Or perhaps, here too** one applies the principle that **anywhere that there exists** both **a permitted** and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person **does not perform the prohibition.** If so, his intention with regard to **this latter** blemished consecrated animal was **to desacralize** it, and therefore he is not flogged for transferring its sanctity to a substitute.


###### Temurah 27a:12
[Temurah 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:12)

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר, הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאַכַּתִּי גַּבְרָא לָא אִיתַּחְזַק בְּאִיסּוּרֵי, לָא שָׁבֵיק הֶתֵּירָא וְעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַת מֵהֶן בַּעֲלַת מוּם, וְאַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין, וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ תַּחַת אֵלּוּ״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **here too, since** this **man** has **not** yet been **established as** one who regularly transgresses **a prohibition,** until he has done so three times, therefore it is assumed that he **does not cast aside the permitted** manner **and perform the prohibition, Rav Ashi** therefore **raises** the following **dilemma:** If **there were four sacrificial animals** standing **before him, one of which was blemished** and the other three were unblemished, **and four non-sacred animals,** all of which were unblemished, **and he said: These** animals **are hereby in place of [*taḥat*] those** animals, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Temurah 27a:13
[Temurah 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:13)

הָכָא וַדַּאי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּחְזַק גַּבְרָא בְּאִיסּוּרֵי (בְּכוּלָּן), לָקֵי בְּאַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Again, the Gemara clarifies the dilemma: **Here, since** it is **certain** that he intended for three unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the three unblemished consecrated animals, this **man** has been **established as** one who regularly transgresses **a prohibition.** Therefore, it is assumed that he also intended for one of the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, which means he is liable to be **flogged four** sets of **lashes** for the four substitutions.


###### Temurah 27a:14
[Temurah 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:14)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתַּחְזַק בְּאִיסּוּרָא, לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ הֶיתֵּירָא וְעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, וְהָוֵי בָּתְרָיְיתָא לְאַחוֹלֵי הָוֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps, even though** in this case he has been **established as** one who transgresses **the prohibition,** nevertheless even such **a person does not cast aside the permitted** manner **and perform the prohibition. And** if so, his intention with regard to **this latter** blemished animal was **to desacralize** it. The Gemara concludes that all of these dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Temurah 27a:15
[Temurah 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:15)

אִם הָיָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּעַל מוּם יֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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.** The owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals, and if the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.


###### Temurah 27a:16
[Temurah 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים דְּבַר תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The consecrated animal **is desacralized by Torah law** even if the consecrated animal was worth one hundred dinars and the non-sacred animal was worth only one *peruta*. **But by rabbinic law,** the owner **is required to conduct** an appraisal to ascertain the relative **value** of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, so that the Temple treasury not suffer a loss. **And Reish Lakish says: Even the requirement to conduct** an appraisal, to ascertain the relative **value** of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies **by Torah law.**


###### Temurah 27a:17
[Temurah 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:17)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִי נֵימָא אַאוֹנָאָה, בְּהָא נֵימָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַף צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים דְּבַר תּוֹרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are we dealing with** here, i.e., what is the case that is subject to the disagreement between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish? **If we say** that they disagree in a case where the difference in value between the two animals was exactly one-sixth, which is the difference **in** value that constitutes **exploitation** by Torah law, and the *halakha* is that such a transaction is valid but one must return the difference in value, would **Reish Lakish say** that **even** in such a case **the requirement to conduct** an appraisal to ascertain the relative **value** of the two animals applies **by Torah law?**


###### Temurah 27a:18
[Temurah 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:18)

וְהָא תְנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה: הָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 56a): **These are matters that,** even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, **are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property.**Since consecrated property is not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation, why would Reish Lakish say that one must repay the difference in value between the two animals to the Temple treasury by Torah law?


###### Temurah 27a:19
[Temurah 27a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/27a:19)

אֶלָּא, אַבִּטּוּל מִקָּח בְּהָא נֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to a case **of nullification of a transaction,** i.e., where the difference in value between the two animals was greater than one-sixth. Would **Rabbi Yoḥanan say** in such a case that one is **required to conduct** an appraisal to ascertain the relative **value** of the two animals **by rabbinic law?**