## Temurah Daf 2b

###### Temurah 2b:1
[Temurah 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:1)

וְיָלֵיף סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִתְּחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ, מָה תְּחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימִר, אַף סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he derives** the *halakhot* of **the end of a consecrated** animal **from the initial consecration** of the animal, as follows: **Just as** with regard to **the initial** state of **consecration** of the animal, **an inheritor** can **effect substitution, so too,** with regard to **the end of the consecrated** animal, **an inheritor places** his **hands** on its head.


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. וְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן זָכָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ״, אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that an inheritor is not able to effect substitution, **what does he do with this** repetitive language in the verse: **“And if he shall at all substitute”?** How does he interpret it? The Gemara answers: It serves **to include a woman** as able to effect substitution and to incur the penalty of forty lashes for doing so. **And** this is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Since** the verses concerning **the entire matter** of substitution **speak only in the masculine, as it is stated: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it”** (Leviticus 27:10), **from where** is it derived that **a woman** is included? **The verse states: “And if he shall at all substitute,” to include a woman.**


###### Temurah 2b:3
[Temurah 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:3)

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִשָּׁה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְּאִם״. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, ״וְאִם״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Meir,** who derives a different *halakha* from that verse, **from where** does **he** derive that **a woman** is included? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the addition of the conjunction “and” in the verse: **“And if** he shall at all substitute.” **And Rabbi Yehuda does not interpret** the term **“and if”** as having any special significance.


###### Temurah 2b:4
[Temurah 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:4)

וּבֵין רַבִּי מֵאִיר וּבֵין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי קְרָא לְאִשָּׁה, הָא לָא רַבְּיַיהּ קְרָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי עָבְדָא תְּמוּרָה לָא לָקְיָא. וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם״ — הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עֳונָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this dispute. **And** according to **both** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir and** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, the reason** why a woman is included is **that the verse** explicitly **includes a woman,** either by adding a conjunction or by repetition of the verb. The Gemara asks: Should one infer that if **the verse did not include** a woman, **I would say** that **when** a woman **performs** an act of **substitution she is not flogged? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says, and so too the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,** that when the verse states: **“When a man or woman shall commit any sin that people commit”** (Numbers 5:6), **the verse equates a woman with a man with regard to all punishments of the Torah?** Why, then, is there a need for the verse to include women in the prohibition against substitution?


###### Temurah 2b:5
[Temurah 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:5)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי עוֹנֶשׁ דְּשָׁוֶה בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִבּוּר, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹנֶשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל הוּא, דִּתְנַן: אֵין הַצִּבּוּר וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה — אִשָּׁה נָמֵי כִּי עָבְדָא לָא לָקְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** for the verse to include women specifically, **lest you say** that **this statement** that equates women with men in general refers only to **a punishment that** applies **equally to an individual and to the public. But here, since it is a punishment that does not** apply **equally to all, as we learned** in a mishna (13a): **The public and partners do not render** an animal **a substitute,** one could claim that **a woman as well, when she performs** an act of substitution, **is not flogged.** The verse therefore **teaches us** that she is in fact liable.


###### Temurah 2b:6
[Temurah 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:6)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: קָטָן מַהוּ שֶׁיָּמִיר? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּקָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכֵיוָן אַקְדּוֹשֵׁי לָא אַקְדֵּישׁ, אֲמוֹרֵי מֵמַיר? אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — בְּקָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** With regard to **a minor, what is** the *halakha*? Is he able **to effect substitution** or not? The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** where this question arises? **If we say** that it is referring **to a minor who has yet to reach the age of** responsibility for his **vows,** i.e., twelve years and one day, **you should not raise the dilemma, as since he cannot consecrate** an animal by means of a vow, **can he effect substitution? Rather, when he raises this dilemma,** it is **with regard to a minor who has reached the age of** responsibility for his **vows.**


###### Temurah 2b:7
[Temurah 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:7)

מִי אָמְרִינַן, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: ״אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי יַפְלִיא נֶדֶר״ — לְרַבּוֹת מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ, דְּקׇדְשׁוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. מִדְּאַקְדּוֹשֵׁי מַקְדֵּישׁ, אֲמוֹרֵי נָמֵי מֵמַיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בַּר עוּנְשִׁין הוּא, בִּתְמוּרָה לָא מִיתְּפִיס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: **Do we say** that a minor can effect substitution, **since the Master said** with regard to consecration: The verse states: “When **a man** shall clearly utter a vow” (Leviticus 27:2). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** the unusual formulation: **Shall clearly utter [*yafli*] a vow,** instead of the more conventional term: Shall take a vow [*yiddor*]? This serves **to include a discriminating** minor **[*mufla*] on the brink of adulthood,** teaching **that his consecration takes effect.** Perhaps, from the fact **that he can consecrate** an animal, **he can also effect substitution. Or perhaps, since no** minor **is subject to punishments, he cannot apply** sanctity to an animal **by** an act of **substitution,** which would incur a punishment.


###### Temurah 2b:8
[Temurah 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:8)

אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר קָטָן עָבֵיד תְּמוּרָה, דְּהָא אָתֵי לִכְלַל עֳונָשִׁין, גּוֹי מַהוּ שֶׁיָּמִיר? מִי אָמְרַתְּ מִדְּאַקְדּוֹשֵׁי מַקְדֵּישׁ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם, שֶׁנּוֹדְרִים נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲמוֹרֵי נָמֵי מֵמַיר. אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אָתֵי לִכְלַל עֳונָשִׁין, כִּי עָבֵיד תְּמוּרָה לָא קָדְשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And even **if you say** that **a minor can perform substitution, as he will come to** an age when he is **subject to punishments, what is** the *halakha* as to whether **a gentile** can **effect substitution? Do you say** that he can do so from the fact **that his consecration takes effect, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“Any man [*ish ish*]…**that brings his offering.” **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** repetitively **“*ish ish*”?** This serves **to include gentiles,** teaching **that they** can **take vows** to bring **vow offerings and gift offerings as a Jew** can. Since the consecration of a gentile takes effect, perhaps **he can effect substitution as well. Or perhaps, since he will not come to** a time when he is **subject to punishments,** therefore **when he performs** an act of **substitution,** the animal is **not consecrated.**


###### Temurah 2b:9
[Temurah 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: קׇדְשֵׁי גוֹיִם — לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין עֲלֵיהֶם נְסָכִים, אֲבָל קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן נְסָכִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Come** and **hear, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Zevaḥim* 5:6): With regard to animals **consecrated by gentiles,** one **may not derive benefit** from them *ab initio*, **but** if one derived benefit from them, he is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property after the fact. **And** if one consumes **them one is not liable for** committing a transgression **with regard to** the prohibitions of ***piggul*** if they were sacrificed with the intent to consume them beyond their designated time, of ***notar*** if he consumed them beyond their designated time, **and** of consuming **ritually impure** offerings if he was impure. Gentiles **cannot render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute** for one they consecrate. **And one does not bring libations for** the offerings of a gentile as independent offerings, **but his offering requires libations.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Temurah 2b:10
[Temurah 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּכוּלָּן אֲנִי רוֹאֶה לְהַחְמִיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: With regard to all of them I see** fit **to be stringent. In what** case **is this statement,** that Rabbi Shimon exempts animals consecrated by gentiles from liability for misuse, **said?** It is said **with regard to** animals **consecrated for the altar,** i.e., offerings; **but with regard to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** one who derives benefit from **them** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. Rava notes: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that gentiles **cannot render** an animal **a substitute** for his offering.


###### Temurah 2b:11
[Temurah 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:11)

וְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, בְּהִקְדִּישׁ גּוֹי לְהִתְכַּפֵּר גּוֹי — לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי — בְּהִקְדִּישׁ גּוֹי וּמִתְכַּפֵּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: בָּתַר מַקְדִּישׁ אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָּתַר מִתְכַּפֵּר אָזְלִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And Rami bar Ḥama** can say: **I do not raise a dilemma** in a case **where a gentile consecrated** an animal as an offering **for a gentile** such as himself **to achieve atonement.** In this case the *baraita* rules explicitly that he cannot effect substitution. **When I raise the dilemma,** it is in a case **where a gentile consecrated** an animal as an offering **and a Jew achieves atonement** with it. In this situation, **do we follow** the **one who consecrated** it, in which case the gentile cannot effect substitution, **or do we follow the one achieving atonement,** in which case he can?


###### Temurah 2b:12
[Temurah 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/2b:12)

תִּיפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Solve this** dilemma **by** invoking a statement **of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If **one consecrates** an animal as an offering to be brought by another, and the animal develops a blemish disqualifying it for sacrifice, if the one who consecrated it desires to redeem it, he **adds one-fifth** to its value, just as he would were it his own offering. By contrast, if the one achieving atonement with the offering desires to redeem it, he does not need to add one-fifth. **But the one achieving atonement** with the offering **can render** another animal **a substitute** for it as if he had consecrated it. **And** if **one separates *teruma*,** the portion of produce designated for a priest, **from his own** produce