Temurah 26b

כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. שְׁמַע מִינָּה תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינָּה קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים (נִדְחָה) [מְדַחָה].

is treated like it, as it too is consecrated but not sacrificed. Conclude three halakhot from this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Conclude from it that an animal that was consecrated with a sanctity that inheres in its value is deferred. One who consecrates only half an animal has consecrated that animal with a sanctity that inheres in its value but not with an inherent sanctity, as the animal cannot be sacrificed.

וּשְׁמַע מִינָּה, בַּעֲלֵי (מוּמִין) [חַיִּים] נִדְחִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דִּיחוּי מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָוֵי דִּיחוּי.

And second, conclude from it that not only can an offering that has already been slaughtered become permanently deferred from the altar, but also living animals that cannot be sacrificed for whatever reason are permanently deferred. And finally, conclude from it that deferral at the outset, when the animal is first consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was fit to be sacrificed when initially consecrated and only later disqualified permanently deferred, but the same applies to an animal that was disqualified from the outset, when it was initially consecrated, e.g., if only half of it was initially consecrated.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר״ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עוֹלָה קְרֵיבָה.

§ With regard to the consecration of an animal with two sanctities, Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where one said: Half the animal is designated as a burnt offering and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, everyone agrees that this animal is consecrated and sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering, not as a tithed animal. The animal tithe is consecrated when it is the tenth of a group of animals that are passed underneath a rod, which is not the case here.

הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ תְּמוּרָה וְחֶצְיָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר״, מַאי?

But in a case where one said with regard to his non-sacred animal: Half of this animal is designated as a substitute and half of it is designated as an animal tithe, which consecration takes effect? Both consecrations are invalid: Consecration as a substitute is valid when a consecrated animal is standing before the substitute, which is not the case here, and consecration as an animal tithe is valid through the process of passing a group of animals underneath a rod. What is the status of the animal in this case?

תְּמוּרָה קְרֵיבָה, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַעֲשֵׂר קְרֵיבָה, שֶׁכֵּן מַקְדִּישׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the animal sacrificed as a substitute, as the sanctity of substitution applies to all sacrificial animals? Or perhaps the animal is sacrificed as an animal tithe, as the consecration of the animal tithe is more comprehensive, since if one mistakenly counted the ninth animal to pass underneath the rod as the tenth or the eleventh as the tenth, he consecrates those animals that passed before and after the tenth. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ״, ״תְּמוּרַת זוֹ״, ״חֲלִיפַת זוֹ״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה. ״זוֹ מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ״ — אֵין זוֹ תְּמוּרָה.

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, or if one said: It is the exchange for that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. If he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, that non-sacred animal is not a substitute.

וְאִם הָיָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּעַל מוּם — יוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים.

And 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 and assumes non-sacred status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.

גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּתַחַת לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי הוּא, וּרְמִינְהוּ: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אָמַר ״חֲלִיפַת זוֹ״ ״תְּמוּרַת זוֹ״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the phrase: In place of [ taḥat ], is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, i.e., the transference of substitution? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita : In a case where one’s non-sacred animal was standing before a consecrated animal belonging to Temple maintenance, and he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby the exchange for that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, he has not said anything, as these terms indicate the transfer of sanctity via substitution, and substitution does not apply to consecrated animals belonging to the Temple maintenance.

״תַּחַת זוֹ״, ״מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ״ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

But if he said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of [ taḥat ] that consecrated animal, or if he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, his statement takes effect, as these terms indicate desacralization, and a consecrated animal belonging to the Temple maintenance can be desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a non-sacred animal.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִיתְּפוֹסֵי הִיא, מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And if it enters your mind that the term taḥat is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and therefore it effects substitution, as taught in the mishna, what is different in the first clause of the baraita , which states that the terms exchange and substitute are terms that do not effect desacralization, and what is different in the latter clause of the baraita , which teaches that the term taḥat effects desacralization despite the fact that it indicates substitution?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״תַּחַת״ מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִיתְּפוֹסֵי וְלִישָּׁנָא דְּאַחוֹלֵי. לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַתְפּוֹסֵי, דִּכְתִיב:

Abaye said, in response: You find that the term: In place of [ taḥat ], is sometimes a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, and it is sometimes a term that indicates desacralization. It is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another, as it is written: