## Temurah Daf 9b

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

וְהוּמַם וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק לְעוֹלָה — מַהוּ שֶׁיָּמִיר בּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the original guilt offering **became blemished, and he desacralized it** by transferring its sanctity **onto another** animal, which was then lost, **and** the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another,** third, animal as **a guilt offering,** and then the second animal was found **and was consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering,** as is the case for any guilt offering whose owner has achieved atonement by means of another offering, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **he** can **effect substitution for** the second animal? Since this animal’s sanctity stems from that of the original blemished animal, and he had already effected a substitute for that original animal, perhaps he cannot now substitute for the second animal, as this would constitute repeat substitution.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אִי שְׁנֵי גוּפִים וּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת — תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ בְּלֹא מִתְכַּפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If** his essential dilemma concerns the fact that there are **two bodies,** i.e., two different animals, then the dilemma would stand even if the original animal **and** the replacement were of **one** type of **sanctity.** If so, **let the dilemma be raised** even **in** a case where he **did not achieve atonement** by another guilt offering, and the second animal remained a guilt offering, rather than being consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


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

אִי שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת, וְגוּף אֶחָד — תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ בְּלֹא הוּמַם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if** the dilemma is due to the fact that there are **two** types of **sanctity,** it would stand even if it was only **one body.** If so, **let the dilemma be raised** even where the animal **did not become blemished** but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another animal, and it was thereby consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Why did Rabbi Avin present such a complex case?


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

וְרַבִּי אָבִין, חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: שְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת — לָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְהָהִיא קְדוּשָּׁה הָא אִיתְּמַר בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא. שְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּשְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Avin raises one** dilemma **as a result of** the anticipated solution to **another** dilemma: **If you say** that in the case of **two bodies and one** type of **sanctity** it is **not** possible to effect substitution on the second animal, perhaps that is **because this sanctity** already **had been substituted one time.** If so, **what is** the *halakha* in the case of **two bodies and two** types of **sanctity?** Is the offering changed enough to enable another substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר אֵין מְמִירִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְמִירִין — הִפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ, וְהֵמִיר בּוֹ, וְהוּמַם וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר וְיָמִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **an alternative version** of the previous dilemma. **Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said** that Rabbi Shimon holds that **one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again** for the same animal, if one **designated** an animal as **a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement and substituted for it, and** the initial guilt offering **became blemished and he desacralized it** by transferring its sanctity **onto another** animal, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **he can then effect substitution** for this last animal? On the one hand, it is a different animal; on the other hand, it possesses the same sanctity.


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

נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה לְעוֹלָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיָמִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Avin raises another dilemma: If the first animal was lost and the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another** as a **guilt offering, and** the first animal was found and **was consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering, what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **he can then effect substitution** for it? On the one hand, it is the same animal; on the other hand, it possesses a different type of sanctity.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֵי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? קְדוּשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף — לָא נִיבְעֵי הוּמַם וְחִלְּלוֹ בְּאַחֵר! אִי גּוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר] בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה — לָא נִיבְעֵי נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Which** of these two is the essential **dilemma he is raising?** If his dilemma concerns a case of **another** type of **sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma** in the case where the initial guilt offering **became blemished and he desacralized it** by transferring its sanctity **onto another** animal. And **if** his dilemma concerns a case of **another body with the same sanctity, he should not raise the dilemma** in the case where the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another** animal as **a guilt offering.**


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

וְרַבִּי אָבִין, חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הוּמַם וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיָמִיר? מִי אָמְרִינַן: בְּאָשָׁם רִאשׁוֹן הוּא דְּאֵין חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר, אֲבָל בְּגוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר], אַף עַל גַּב דְּקַדִּישׁ אוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה — חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֹּל בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Avin raises one** dilemma **as a result of** the anticipated solution to **another** dilemma, as follows: If the initial guilt offering **became blemished and he desacralized it** by transferring its sanctity **onto another** animal, **what is** the *halakha* as to **whether he** can **then effect substitution** for the second animal? **Do we say** that it **is with the first guilt offering that he cannot effect substitution again, but with another body, even though it is sanctified with the same** type of **sanctity, he** can **effect substitution again? Or perhaps** we say that with regard to **any** animal **with the same** type of **sanctity, he cannot effect substitution again?**


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

וְאִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר הַדִּין גּוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר], כֵּיוָן דִּבְאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה קָאֵים — אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר, אֶלָּא נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה רִאשׁוֹן לְעוֹלָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיָמִיר בּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that with regard to **this other body, since it maintains the same** type of **sanctity** as the original animal one **cannot effect substitution again, but** what then of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another** animal as **a guilt offering, and this first** animal was then found and **was consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering? What is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **he can effect substitution again** for the same animal, since now its sanctity has changed?


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

מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי אֵין מֵמִיר וְחוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר — הָנֵי מִילֵּי אוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה, אֲבָל אוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף בִּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת — חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: אַף עַל קְדוּשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת, כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף הוּא — אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמֵמִיר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Do we say** that **when** Rabbi Yoḥanan states that the owner **cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again, this statement** applies to **the same body with the same** type of **sanctity, but** as for **the same body with another** type of **sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps** we say that **even concerning another** type of **sanctity, since it is the same body, he cannot effect substitution again** with it. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֶקְדֵּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֵׁנִי מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a similar discussion. **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:** One who redeems an animal that was **originally consecrated** as an offering and developed a blemish must pay an amount equivalent to its value and **add** an additional **one-fifth** of its value. **But** one who redeems an animal that was **consecrated second,** i.e., in place of a desacralized blemished offering, and then developed a blemish itself, must pay an amount equivalent to its value but **does not add** an additional **one-fifth** of its value.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית״ — מַקְדִּישׁ, וְלֹא הַמַּתְפִּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse states: “And if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part** of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi infers that the requirement to pay an additional one-fifth applies to one **who consecrates** an item directly, **but not** to **the one who applies** the sanctity of another item to it.


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: הִפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ, וְהוּמַם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ, וְחִלְּלוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ, וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה לְעוֹלָה — מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹסִיף עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma** concerning a similar matter: If one **designated** an animal as **a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement and it became blemished, and he added one-fifth to its** value **and desacralized it,** and he then used the consecrated money to purchase **another** guilt offering, which was then lost, **and** the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another,** third, animal as **a guilt offering, and** the second animal was found and **consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering,** and then it developed a blemish, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether the owner must **add one-fifth to its** value when he redeems it?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אִי שְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ בְּלֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If he is raising a dilemma** with regard to **two bodies,** i.e., two different animals, the problem should stand even if both are of **one** type of **sanctity.** If so, **let the dilemma be raised** even **in** a case where he **did not achieve atonement** through another guilt offering, and the second animal was never consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


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

אִי שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת, וְגוּף אֶחָד קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — תִּיבְּעֵי בְּלֹא הוּמַם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if he is raising a dilemma** with regard to **two** types of **sanctity,** it should apply even in the case of **one body.** If so, **let the dilemma be raised** even **in** a case where the original animal **did not become blemished** but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another offering and thereby consigned the original animal to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.


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

וְרַבִּי אָבִין, חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּקְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת לָא — מִשּׁוּם דִּבְהָהִיא קְדוּשָּׁה אִיתּוֹסַף בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא חוֹמֶשׁ, שְׁנֵי גוּפִין וּשְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rabbi Avin raises one** dilemma **as a result of** the anticipated solution to **another** dilemma, as follows: **If you say** that in a case of **two bodies and one** type of **sanctity** the owner does **not** add one-fifth, perhaps that is **because one-fifth was** already **added once to** redeem an animal **with that** type of **sanctity.** If so, **what** is the *halakha* in the case of **two bodies and two** types of **sanctity?** Perhaps, since the second animal possesses a different sanctity, it is considered to possess its own original sanctity, rather than derivative sanctity, and therefore one who redeems it adds one-fifth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: הִפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ, וְהוּמַם וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר וְהוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, נִתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר, וְנִיתַּק זֶה לְעוֹלָה — מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹסִיף עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **an alternative version** of the previous dilemma. **Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma:** If one **designated** an animal as **a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement, and it became blemished and he desacralized** it by transferring its sanctity **onto another animal, and he added one-fifth** of its value, and the second animal was lost and the owner **achieved atonement by** bringing **another,** third, animal as **a guilt offering, and** the second animal was found and **was consigned to** be sacrificed as **a burnt offering,** and then it developed a blemish, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether the owner must **add one-fifth to its** value when he redeems it?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָדֵין קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אִי קְדוּשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — לָא נִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ הוּמַם, אִי גּוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר] בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Which** of these two **is** the essential **dilemma he is raising? If he raises a dilemma** with regard to the case of **another** type of **sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma** about a case where the initial guilt offering **became blemished** and he transferred its sanctity to another animal. And **if** his essential dilemma concerns the case of **another body with the same** type of **sanctity,** he could pose his dilemma with regard to a case where the second animal was not lost and found and consigned to be a burnt offering.


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

וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹסִיף עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: בְּאָשָׁם קַמָּא הוּא דְּמוֹסֵיף, אֲבָל בְּגוּף (אֶחָד) [אַחֵר], אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָאֵים בְּאוֹתָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה, [אֵין] מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma. If the initial guilt offering became blemished **and he desacralized it** by transferring its sanctity **onto another,** second, animal, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether the owner must **add one-fifth to its** value when he redeems it? **Do we say** that **with regard to** a second redemption of the **first guilt offering he** does not **add** one-fifth, since it is the same body and the same sanctity, **but** here, when it is **another body, even though it maintains the same** type of **sanctity** as the initial animal, he **adds one-fifth,** as it is considered to be directly consecrated?