## Temurah Daf 7b

###### Temurah 7b:1
[Temurah 7b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:1)

״נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ״ — זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא נְדָבָה, נֶדֶר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְנֵדֶר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A vow offering differs from a gift offering in that if it dies prematurely, one is liable to replace the former but not the latter. The verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, you may offer it for a gift, and for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23). The phrase **“You may offer it for a gift” is** referring to a blemished animal **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance. And I have** derived **only** that one may consecrate it in the manner of **a gift; from where** is it derived that one may consecrate it in the manner of **a vow** as well? **The verse states:** “You may offer it for a gift **and for a vow.”**


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

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא נֶדֶר, נְדָבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נְדָבָה״. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״ — בְּהַרְצָאַת גּוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that one can consecrate blemished animals **even** as **offerings** to be sacrificed on **the altar.** Therefore, **the verse states: “And for a vow it shall not be accepted.” This** is referring to **offerings** sacrificed on **the altar,** for which acceptance is a relevant term. **And I have** derived **only** that one may not consecrate such an animal as **a vow** offering. **From where** is it derived that one may not do so as **a gift** offering? **The verse states: “A gift**…and for a vow it shall not be accepted.” **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** In employing the phrase **“It shall not be accepted,” the verse is speaking of** consecration that depends upon **the acceptance of** the animal’s **body,** i.e., consecration as an offering. Nevertheless, they may be consecrated for Temple maintenance.


###### Temurah 7b:3
[Temurah 7b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:3)

הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ אַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ לִדְמֵי נְסָכִים — נָמֵי לָקֵי, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: בְּהַרְצָאַת גּוּפוֹ — נָמֵי לָקֵי, אֲבָל בִּדְמֵי נְסָכִים — לָא לָקֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **is** identical to the opinion of **the first *tanna*.** What is their dispute? The Gemara suggests: **What, is it not** that **they disagree with regard to this, that the first *tanna* holds** that **even** if one **consecrates it to** be sold and its **money** is used **for** purchasing **libations, he is flogged as well; and Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **in** a case where there is **acceptance of** the animal’s **body,** the one who consecrated it **is indeed flogged, but** if one consecrates it to be sold and its **money** is used **for** purchasing **libations, he is not flogged. Learn from** the *baraita* that the first *tanna* holds that consecration toward libations is equivalent to consecration as an offering, as Rava suggested above.


###### Temurah 7b:4
[Temurah 7b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:4)

וְאֶלָּא ״אוֹתוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ״ — ״אוֹתוֹ״ תַּעֲשֶׂה נְדָבָה, וְאִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה תָּמִים נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. מִיכָּן אָמְרוּ: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes the wording of Leviticus 22:23: **But why do I** need the word **“it,”** in the phrase: “You may offer it”? What does this serve to exclude? It is required **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: **“You may offer it for a gift,”** this teaches that **you may offer this** blemished animal **as a gift** for Temple maintenance, **but you may not offer an unblemished** animal **as a gift for Temple maintenance. From here** the Sages **said: One who consecrates unblemished** animals **for Temple maintenance transgresses a positive mitzva.**


###### Temurah 7b:5
[Temurah 7b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:5)

וּמִנַּיִן אַף בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is it derived that he has transgressed **a prohibition as well? As it is stated** at the beginning of that passage: **“And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying [*lemor*]”** (Leviticus 22:1). This **teaches that** every mitzva stated in **the passage is** considered **a prohibition.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Temurah 7b:6
[Temurah 7b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְבַר קַפָּרָא: מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אֲמַר לֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב ״לֵאמֹר״ — ״לֹא״ נֶאֱמַר בַּדְּבָרִים. בֵּי רַבִּי אָמְרִי: ״לֹא אֱמוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said to bar Kappara: From where may** it **be inferred** that every mitzva stated in the passage is considered a prohibition? Bar Kappara **said to him** that this is **as it is written:** As the verse states: **“*Lemor*,”** the term can be read as though it states: **No [***lo***],** an expression of prohibition, **is stated [*ne’emar*] with regard to** the subsequent **matters. In the school of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **they say:** The term should be understood to mean that God said to Moses: **No [*lo*] shall you say [*emor*]** to them these matters.


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

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵבְרֵי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָמַר רָבָא: עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ כּוּלּוֹ״ וּמִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ מִקְצָתוֹ״. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ A *baraita* above (6b) stated that one who sacrifices a blemished animal on the altar transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn all of it,” and if he sacrificed part of it, he transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn part of it.” With regard to this it **was stated:** In the case of **one who brings up the limbs of blemished** animals **onto the altar, Rava says** that **he violates** both the prohibition **of “You may not burn all of it;” and** the prohibition **of “You may not burn part of it,”** and he receives two sets of lashes. **Abaye says: One is not flogged** twice **for** violating **a general prohibition.** Since one verse serves as the source for both prohibitions, one is not flogged twice for its violation.


###### Temurah 7b:8
[Temurah 7b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the *Tosefta* (1:10): **One who consecrates blemished** animals **for** sacrifice **on the altar violates five** separate **categories** of prohibition. The aforementioned *baraita* enumerated these and included both the prohibition “You may not burn all of it” and the prohibition “You may not burn part of it,” indicating that one is flogged for transgressing each of these prohibitions. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


###### Temurah 7b:9
[Temurah 7b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּגַבְרֵי קָתָנֵי! אִי בְּגַבְרֵי — ״עוֹבֵר״?! ״עוֹבְרִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּחַד גַּבְרָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The *baraita* **is teaching** the *halakha* **with regard to** different **men,** one of whom burned an entire animal on the altar, and one of whom burned only part of it. One person cannot be liable for both prohibitions. The Gemara challenges: **If** it is teaching the *halakha* **of** different **men,** why does it say: **Violates,** in the third person singular? It **should have** stated: **Violate,** in the plural. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that the *baraita* is referring **to one man, and** this is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


###### Temurah 7b:10
[Temurah 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַפֵּיק ״הַקְטָרַת מִקְצָתוֹ״, וְעַיֵּיל ״קַבָּלַת הַדָּם״. קַבָּלַת דָּם — לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִית לֵיהּ, לְתַנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ? קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** From the list of five prohibitions, **remove** that of **burning part of** the offering, **and insert** the **collection of the blood,** which means that there is only one prohibition for burning the offering, and the number of prohibitions still remains at five. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to the **collection of the blood, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of** the opinion that one transgresses that prohibition, but **the first *tanna* is not of** that opinion. How, then, can Abaye contradict the first *tanna*? The Gemara concludes: It is **difficult.**


###### Temurah 7b:11
[Temurah 7b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:11)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **an alternative version** of the previous point: **But** from the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** it may be inferred that **the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Abaye** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Temurah 7b:12
[Temurah 7b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִין בְּשֶׁלָּהֶן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְמִירִין בְּשֶׁלָּהֶן. אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִין לֹא בְּחַטָּאת וְלֹא בְּאָשָׁם וְלֹא בִּבְכוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְמִירִין בִּבְכוֹר? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וּבְכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן. מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵין מְמִירִין בּוֹ, אַף בְּכוֹר אֵין מְמִירִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The priests substitute for their** own offerings **and Israelites substitute for their** own offerings. **The priests substitute neither for a sin offering, nor for a guilt offering, nor for a firstborn** offering that they received from an Israelite, as those animals are not their property, and one does not substitute an animal that is not his. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: For what** reason can priests **not substitute for a firstborn** offering that they received from an Israelite? Does it not belong to them? **Rabbi Akiva said to him: A sin offering and a guilt offering** are **a gift to the priest, and the firstborn** offering is likewise **a gift to the priest. Just as** in the cases of **a sin offering and a guilt offering,** priests that receive one of them from an Israelite **cannot substitute for it, so too** with regard to **a firstborn** offering, priests that receive it from an Israelite **cannot substitute for it.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: מָה לוֹ אִם אֵינוֹ מֵמִיר בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁאֵין זָכִין בָּהֶן בְּחַיֵּיהֶן, תֹּאמַר בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁזָּכִין בּוֹ בְּחַיָּיו! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קּוֹדֶשׁ״, הֵיכָן קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו? בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים, אַף תְּמוּרָה בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: What** is this comparison **for him? If** a priest **does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which** priests **do not acquire during** the animals’ **lifetimes, will you say** the same **with regard to a firstborn, which** priests **do acquire during** the animal’s **lifetime? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:10), which juxtaposes the consecration of the consecrated animal with that of its non-sacred substitute? **Where is** the consecrated animal **imbued with sanctity?** It is **in the house of the owner. So too,** the **substitute** animal is consecrated **in the house of the owner.** Therefore, the priest cannot substitute for the firstborn that he received because he is not the owner that initially consecrated it.


###### Temurah 7b:14
[Temurah 7b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּם חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט, וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִית לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּויהּ (הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לַכֹּהֵן שׁוּתָּפוּת בּוֹ), אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, כֵּיוָן דְּתָם לְהַקְרָבָה הוּא דְּקָאֵי — אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Ma’aser Sheni* 1:2): With regard to **a firstborn** offering, **one may sell it** if it is **unblemished** only while it is still **alive,** as after it is slaughtered outside the Temple one may not derive benefit from it, and if it was offered in the Temple, one may not sell sacrificial meat. **And** if it is **blemished,** one may sell it while it is **alive or** after it has been **slaughtered. And** a priest **can betroth a woman with it,** as it is his property. **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught** this *halakha* **only with regard to the present,** when there is no Temple, **since the priest has** the ability to **acquire** the firstborn offering. **But when the Temple is standing, since** the **unblemished** firstborn animal **stands for sacrifice,** one may **not sell it unblemished** while it is **alive.**


###### Temurah 7b:15
[Temurah 7b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי — חַי אִין, שָׁחוּט לָא. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — מִי אִיכָּא תָּם שָׁחוּט? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, וְקָתָנֵי נָמֵי: מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי, (אַלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּויהּ)!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman:** The mishna teaches that **one may sell an unblemished** firstborn offering while it is **alive.** One can infer that while it is **alive, yes,** one may sell it, but once it has been **slaughtered,** one may **not** sell it. **When** is this the *halakha*? **If we say** that this mishna is speaking **in the present, is there an unblemished, slaughtered,** firstborn offering? Offerings are not slaughtered in the present day. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that the mishna is speaking of the time **when the Temple is standing. And** yet, the mishna **still teaches** that **one may sell an unblemished** firstborn offering while it is **alive,** which contradicts the statement of Rav Naḥman.


###### Temurah 7b:16
[Temurah 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7b:16)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, מִי קָתָנֵי: מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי — אִין, שָׁחוּט — לָא? הִא גּוּפַאּ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, דְּבִזְמַן הַזֶּה נָמֵי מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman responds: **No; actually** the mishna is referring to the *halakha* **in the present.** I disagree with the above inference. **Does** the mishna explicitly **teach: One may sell an unblemished** firstborn offering while it is **alive, yes,** but once it has been **slaughtered, no?** The mishna does not mean to rule out selling a slaughtered animal; rather, **it is coming to teach us the** matter itself, **that even in the present, one may sell it unblemished** while it is **alive.**