## Temurah Daf 9a

###### Temurah 9a:1
[Temurah 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:1)

בּוּצִינָא טָב מִקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A zucchini** now **is better than** the possibility of **a gourd** later. There is no reason to give up an animal now for the hope of receiving another later.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** מְמִירִין מִן הַצֹּאן עַל הַבָּקָר, וּמִן הַבָּקָר עַל הַצֹּאן, וּמִן הַכְּבָשִׂים עַל הָעִזִּים, וּמִן הָעִזִּים עַל הַכְּבָשִׂים, מִן הַזְּכָרִים עַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת, וּמִן הַנְּקֵבוֹת עַל הַזְּכָרִים, מִן הַתְּמִימִים עַל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, מִן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עַל הַתְּמִימִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** It is written: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). The mishna enumerates the consecrated and non-sacred animals this verse applies to. **One substitutes** for consecrated animals **from the flock** of sheep or goats, and the sanctity takes effect **upon** animals from **the herd** of cattle, **and** one substitutes **from the herd** and the sanctity takes effect **upon** animals from **the flock. And** one substitutes **from the sheep** and the sanctity takes effect **upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep;** and **from the males upon the females, and from the females upon the males;** and **from the unblemished** animals **upon the blemished** animals, and **from the blemished** animals **upon the unblemished** animals.


###### Temurah 9a:3
[Temurah 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:3)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב״, וְאֵיזֶהוּ ״טוֹב בְּרָע״? בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The source for this is **as it is stated: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good”** (Leviticus 27:10). **And which is** the case of **good for bad** where the substitution takes effect? It is a case where one substitutes for **blemished** animals **whose consecration preceded their blemish.** But if an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


###### Temurah 9a:4
[Temurah 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁמְּמִירִין מִן הַצֹּאן עַל הַבָּקָר, וּמִן הַבָּקָר עַל הַצֹּאן, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים עַל הָעִזִּים, וּמִן הָעִזִּים עַל הַכְּבָשִׂים, וּמִן הַזְּכָרִים עַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת, וּמִן הַנְּקֵבוֹת עַל הַזְּכָרִים, וּמִן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עַל הַתְּמִימִים, וּמִן הַתְּמִימִים עַל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From where are these matters** derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). When the verse states: **“An animal for an animal,” from here** it is derived **that one substitutes** for consecrated animals **from the flock** and the sanctity takes effect **upon** animals from **the herd, and** one likewise substitutes **from the herd upon** animals from **the flock;** and one substitutes **from the sheep** and the sanctity takes effect **upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females and from the females upon the males; and from the blemished** animals **upon the unblemished** animals **and from the unblemished** animals **upon the blemished** animals.


###### Temurah 9a:5
[Temurah 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:5)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ קָדַם מוּם לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב״, וְאֵיזֶהוּ ״טוֹב בְּרָע״? בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that this is the *halakha* **even** for animals whose **blemish preceded their consecration.** Therefore, **the verse states: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good”** (Leviticus 27:10), **and which is** the case of **good for bad** where the substitution takes effect? It is a case of **blemished** animals **whose consecration preceded their blemish.** If an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect.


###### Temurah 9a:6
[Temurah 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:6)

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בּוֹ״, ״בְּטוֹב״ אַחְרִינָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: טוֹב מֵעִיקָּרוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, רַע מֵעִיקָּרוֹ אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the second half of the *baraita*: **What is the** biblical **derivation** that leads to this conclusion? **Abaye said** that **the verse should have stated: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for it. Why do I** need **another** instance of the term **“for good”? Learn from** this repetition that if the animal is **good,** i.e., unblemished, **from its beginning,** before it was consecrated, one can **render a substitute** for it, but if it is **bad from its beginning,** one **cannot render a substitute** for it.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: תַּרְוַויְיהוּ ״טוֹב״ יַיתּוֹרֵי מְיַיתְּרִי. אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בּוֹ״, לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב תַּרְוַיְיהוּ ״טוֹב״? חַד ״טוֹב״ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּטוֹב נָמֵי, כִּי מֵמִיר לָקֵי. וְאִידַּךְ ״טוֹב״ — מֵעִיקָּרוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, רַע מֵעִיקָּרוֹ אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Both** instances **of** the word **“good”** in the verse **are superfluous. If so, let the verse write: He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it for bad, or bad for it. Why do I** need the verse **to write both** instances of the word **“good”? One** instance of the word **“good”** teaches that **even** if one substitutes a good animal **for a good** animal, **when he effects substitution** he is **flogged. And the other** instance teaches that if the animal is **good from its beginning** one can **render a substitute** for it, but if it is **bad from its beginning** one **cannot render a substitute** for it.


###### Temurah 9a:8
[Temurah 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:8)

וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא, וּמָה טוֹב בְּרָע, דְּעַלּוֹיֵי קָא מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ — לָקֵי, טוֹב בְּטוֹב, דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּלָקֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye said:** The first derivation of Rava is unnecessary, as that *halakha* **is** already derived by **an *a fortiori*** inference, as follows: **Just as** one who substitutes **a good** animal **for a bad** blemished one, **where** he seeks to **improve** the standing of the consecrated animal by making it fit for sacrifice, is nevertheless **flogged,** is it **not all the more so** the case **that** one who substitutes **a good** animal **for a good** animal, **which are equivalent to each other,** should be **flogged?**


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

וְרָבָא — אֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין, וְאַבַּיֵּי אָמַר לָךְ: הָא לָאו דִּינָא הוּא, מִי גָּרַע טוֹב מֵרַע?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** would respond that an *a fortiori* inference is not sufficient, as **one does not administer punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference.** Punishment with lashes can be based only on the explicit wording of a verse. **And Abaye** could **say to you** that **this is not** a mere **logical derivation,** but it is included in the language of the verse, as, **is** substituting **a good,** unblemished, animal **less** of an act of substitution **than** substituting **a bad** one? The prohibition stated in the verse clearly applies in either case.


###### Temurah 9a:10
[Temurah 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ״ בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, ״וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ״ בְּשֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. וְלִכְתּוֹב ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״לֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* that when the verse states: **“He shall neither exchange it,”** this is referring to substituting one’s animal **for that of others.** The phrase **“nor substitute it”** is referring to substituting one’s non-sacred animal **for his own** sacred one. The Gemara objects: **But let** the verse **write** simply: **“He shall not exchange it,” and** there will be **no need** to write: **“Nor substitute it,”** as the prohibition against substituting for one’s own animal can be inferred *a fortiori* from the prohibition against substituting for another’s animal.


###### Temurah 9a:11
[Temurah 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:11)

אִי כְּתַב הָכִי — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: תֵּצֵא זוֹ וְתִכָּנֵס זוֹ הוּא דְּתִילְקֵי, אֲבָל מֵמִיר דְּתַרְוַויְיהוּ קָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לְהוּ — אֵימָא לָא לָקֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** the verse had **written** the prohibition in **that manner, I would say that** one is **flogged** only if he stated: **This** consecrated animal **should leave** its consecrated status **and this** non-sacred animal **should enter** in its stead. **But** if one **effects substitution** by simply stating: This is a substitute for that, **as he has consecrated both of** the animals, **I would say** that he is **not flogged.** The additional phrase in the verse **teaches us** that he is flogged in this case as well.


###### Temurah 9a:12
[Temurah 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:12)

הַאי בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי נֵימָא בְּהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּידֵיהּ, וְחוּלִּין דְּעָלְמָא — מִי מָצֵי מַקְדֵּישׁ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְאֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ דְּעָלְמָא, וְחוּלִּין דִּידֵיהּ — מִי מַתְפֵּיס בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What are the circumstances** of substituting his animal **for that of others? If we say** that the **consecrated animal** is **his and** the **non-sacred** animal belongs **to others, is he able to consecrate** an animal in this manner? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“When a man shall consecrate his house to be sacred unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:14), which teaches that **just as his house is in his possession, so too, any** item one desires to consecrate must be **in his possession.** One cannot consecrate another’s animal. **But rather,** if we say that the **consecrated animal** belongs **to others, and** the **non-sacred** animal is **his, can one effect** substitution **for an item that is not his?**


###### Temurah 9a:13
[Temurah 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:13)

לְעוֹלָם בִּבְהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ דְּעָלְמָא, וְחוּלִּין דִּידֵיהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר מָרֵיהּ דִּבְהֵמָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ: ״כׇּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהָמִיר בִּבְהֶמְתּוֹ יָבֹא וְיָמִיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually,** the *baraita* is referring **to a consecrated** animal **of others and his non-sacred** animal, and it is a case **where the owner of the consecrated animal said** that **whoever wants to effect substitution for his animal can come and effect substitution.** In this case, one can effect substitution even for a consecrated item that is not his.


###### Temurah 9a:14
[Temurah 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** מְמִירִין אֶחָד בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּאֶחָד, אֶחָד בְּמֵאָה, וּמֵאָה בְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מְמִירִין אֶלָּא אֶחָד בְּאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, מָה ״הוּא״ מְיוּחָד, אַף הִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One substitutes one** non-sacred animal **for two** consecrated animals **and two** non-sacred animals **for one** consecrated animal, and one substitutes **one** non-sacred animal **for one hundred** consecrated animals **and one hundred** non-sacred animals **for one** consecrated animal. **Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one** non-sacred animal **for one** consecrated animal, **as it is stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:10). **Just as “it”** indicates one **specific** animal, **so too,** its substitute can be only one **specific** animal.


###### Temurah 9a:15
[Temurah 9a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁמְּמִירִין אֶחָד בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּאֶחָד, אֶחָד בְּמֵאָה, וּמֵאָה בְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מְמִירִין אֶלָּא אֶחָד בְּאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה״, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמוֹת, וְלֹא בְּהֵמוֹת בִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the dispute between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara explains: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“An animal for an animal”** (Leviticus 27:10). **From here** it is derived that **one substitutes one** non-sacred animal **for two** consecrated animals **and two** non-sacred animals **for one** consecrated animal, and **one** non-sacred animal **for one hundred** consecrated animals **and one hundred** non-sacred animals **for one** consecrated animal. **Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one** non-sacred animal **for one** consecrated animal, **as it is stated: “An animal [*behema*] for an animal,” and** it is **not** stated: **An animal for animals [*bivehemot*], nor: Animals for an animal.**


###### Temurah 9a:16
[Temurah 9a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:16)

אָמַר לוֹ: מָצִינוּ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁקְּרוּיָה ״בְּהֵמָה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה״. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — ״בְּהֵמָה רַבָּה״ אִיקְּרִי, ״בְּהֵמָה״ סְתָם לָא אִיקְּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The first *tanna* **said to** Rabbi Shimon: **We have found that** a group of **animals is called** by the singular term ***behema*, as it is stated: “And many animals [*uvhema rabba*]”** (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara notes: **And Rabbi Shimon** could respond that many animals **are** indeed **called “*behema rabba*,”** but they **are not called “*behema*” without** further **specification.**


###### Temurah 9a:17
[Temurah 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:17)

וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם ״בְּהֵמָה״ הוּא? וְהָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם ״הוּא״, מָה ״הוּא״ מְיוּחָד — אַף תְּמוּרָה מְיוּחֶדֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is the reason of Rabbi Shimon** really **due to** the verse’s phrase **“an animal** for an animal”? **But isn’t the reason of Rabbi Shimon,** as explained in the mishna, **due to** the word **“it”** in the verse? **Just as “it”** indicates one **specific** animal, **so too,** its **substitute** can be only one **specific** animal.


###### Temurah 9a:18
[Temurah 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:18)

מֵעִיקָּרָא אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִן ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ״, וְכִי חֲזָא דְּדָרְשִׁי רַבָּנַן מִ״בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה״, אָמַר לָהֶם אִיהוּ: מֵהָתָם נָמֵי מָצֵינַן לְמֵילַף טַעְמָא דִּידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Initially, Rabbi Shimon stated** his opinion **to** the Sages by drawing support **from** the phrase: **“Then both it and its substitute.” But when he saw that the Rabbis taught** their opinion drawing support **from** the phrase **“an animal for an animal,” he said to them: You can learn the reason for my** opinion **from there too.**


###### Temurah 9a:19
[Temurah 9a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:19)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמְּמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה?! וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְמִירִין שְׁנַיִם בְּאֶחָד, כֵּן אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** Although he holds that one cannot substitute two animals for one, **Rabbi Shimon concedes that one can effect substitution** once **and then effect substitution again** for the same consecrated animal. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that one can ask: **Where has the initial consecration of the consecrated** animal **gone?** Even after one effects substitution, it remains consecrated as it was before. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Rabbi Shimon maintains that **just as one cannot substitute two** animals **for one, so** too, one **cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again** using the same consecrated animal.


###### Temurah 9a:20
[Temurah 9a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:20)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְמִירִין אֶחָד בִּשְׁנַיִם, כָּךְ אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֵין מְמִירִין שְׁנַיִם בְּאֶחָד, כָּךְ אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ״, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** and it **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Reish Lakish.** It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Just as** one **cannot substitute one** animal **for two, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again.** It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Reish Lakish:** One **might** have thought that **just as Rabbi Shimon said** that one **cannot substitute two** animals **for one, so too, one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Then both it and its substitute”** (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that one can effect substitution **with even one hundred** non-sacred animals.


###### Temurah 9a:21
[Temurah 9a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/9a:21)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר ״אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין״, הִפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ, וְהֵמִיר בּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the statement of the one who says** that **one cannot effect substitution** once **and then effect substitution again,** if one **designated** an animal as **a guilt offering with which to atone and effected substitution for it,**