Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 13 for kids: Which Swap Counts?

תמורה י״ג

🔁 This daf asks when setting aside teruma a second time counts. It also explores which sacred animals can make another animal sacred through substitution.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 13a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 13b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 13

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 13 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 13a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Three fields and two furrows — The field containing the grave becomes a beit haperas, as do the fields on either side in the direction of plowing: east and west if that is how the valley’s fields are plowed, or north and south if they are plowed that way. The plow may have carried soil and bones into those fields, but not in all four directions, since people do not ordinarily plow both ways. The field containing the grave is affected in its entirety because the grave’s location is unknown. Each neighboring field is affected for only one furrow’s length: the grave may have been at either edge of the first field, and the Sages estimated that a plow could carry bones one furrow beyond it.
  2. The teruma of both is teruma — Both partners have a share in the produce.
  3. The teruma of neither is teruma — Even the first partner’s designation fails: when the second designates teruma again, he shows that he did not consent to the first partner’s designation. The first therefore acted without the second’s consent, and the same is true of the second.
  4. The correct measure — One-fiftieth.
  5. But if not — If the first partner gave too little, the second partner’s designation is teruma. Rabbi Akiva, however, holds that neither designation is teruma in either case. Since the mishna states its rule without qualification, it follows Rabbi Akiva.
  6. To include an unwitting substitution as an intentional one — As explained later, a person meant to substitute a black animal but substituted a white one. If he had mistakenly consecrated the white animal directly, it would not be consecrated; in a substitution, it is.
  7. Only an animal — One may substitute an animal for an animal.
  8. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not produce substitutes — The verse about substitution says “offering,” and items consecrated for Temple maintenance are not called an offering, as the Gemara explains.
  9. Rabbi Shimon said — He holds that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are called an offering, so he cannot exclude them from substitution on that basis. Instead, he derives the exclusion from the animal tithe: although it was included among sacred offerings subject to substitution, Scripture singled it out and stated its law of substitution separately. Just as the animal tithe is an individual offering, so too offerings subject to substitution must be individual offerings. This excludes communal offerings and partners’ offerings, since the animal tithe does not belong to partners.
  10. Offering — The verse says, “And if it is an animal from which they bring an offering,” and then, “He shall not exchange it.”
  11. If “offering,” I might think — This discussion concerns slaughtering offerings outside the Temple. The word “if” follows the style of the Sifra’s questions. Earlier, the word “offering” was interpreted to mean that one is liable to excision for slaughtering an offering outside, but not for slaughtering a non-sacred animal inside the Temple. The question now asks: If “offering” is understood that way, might even items consecrated for Temple maintenance be included? Some explain “if” from the word “or” in the verse about slaughtering outside, but that is incorrect.
  12. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance — They are ordinarily blemished animals, unfit for the Tent of Meeting; nevertheless, they are called an offering.
  13. According to Rabbi Shimon — In the mishna, he holds that these items are called an offering. He therefore excludes them through the comparison to the animal tithe, not through the word “offering.”
  14. They are not called an “offering to the Lord” — The word “offering” alone would include them, but the full phrase does not.
  15. The correct reading is: “The Sages taught: ‘He shall not examine…’” — Another version reads: “This is Rabbi’s view, and that is Rabbi Shimon’s: according to Rabbi Shimon they are called an offering, while according to Rabbi they are not.” On that reading, the mishna contains no disagreement; it is all Rabbi Shimon’s view. Its statement that items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not produce substitutes is his ruling, whose reason he then explains, not a deduction from the word “offering.” Thus one cannot say that one view is Rabbi Shimon’s and the other the Rabbis’. In this version, the ensuing question reads: “What is Rabbi’s view, and what is Rabbi Shimon’s? As it is taught: ‘He shall not examine whether it is good or bad…’”
  16. Why was it stated — Why does the verse repeat the law of substitution for the animal tithe? “He shall not exchange it” was already stated and applies to sacred offerings generally, including the animal tithe.
  17. And items consecrated for Temple maintenance — This entire baraita follows Rabbi Shimon, who holds that such items are called an offering. It goes on to explain his reasoning. Even according to the first version of the discussion, the baraita is certainly his: its citation of “He shall not examine…” means that the law of substitution is repeated for the animal tithe to compare other sacred offerings to it, as Rabbi Shimon says.
  18. And something obligatory — The Gemara explains later what this excludes.
  19. And something not jointly owned — As explained above, “It shall be yours” excludes an animal tithe owned by partners.
Tosafot on Temurah 13a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Three fields of two furrows — Rashi explains that the field containing the grave affects the fields on either side in the direction of plowing: east and west if fields are plowed east–west, or north and south if they are plowed north–south. This fits the Rabbis’ view. But Rashi’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer—that all four surrounding fields become a beit haperas—is difficult: why would fields outside the direction of plowing be affected? Rather, Rabbi Eliezer means that whenever plowing carries earth from a beit haperas into a neighboring field, that field becomes a beit haperas and can, in turn, affect the next field, without limit.
  2. Our mishna follows Rabbi Akiva, as we learned: When partners separate teruma one after the other, Rabbi Eliezer says both separations are teruma — Each partner owns a share. Although Scripture excludes partners from separating teruma together, that means neither partner’s entire separation counts; a portion of each one’s separation can count.
  3. Rabbi Akiva says neither separation is teruma — Rashi explains that even the first is invalid: the second partner’s action shows he did not consent to it, so the first separated teruma without his consent. But this does not fit the comparison to a substitute made after a substitute, where the first substitution is valid and only the second is not. It therefore seems that here, too, the first separation is valid and the second is not. Yet a mishna in Terumot says that Rabbi Akiva considers both partners’ separations valid. Rabbi Yitzhak explains that here the partners authorized each other to separate teruma: Rabbi Akiva holds that the first separation is valid because it had the other’s consent, while the second does nothing because the first has already separated it. Rabbi Eliezer holds that both are valid because each shows he did not accept the other’s separation. In Terumot, where they did not authorize each other, each separated teruma from his own share, so part of each separation is valid.
Rashi on Temurah 13b, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, “Why was the animal tithe singled out now?” — In his view, the other exclusions need no separate verse: “He shall not substitute” is singular and excludes communal and jointly owned offerings; “offering” means an altar offering, not property dedicated to Temple upkeep. He also holds that surplus funds go toward communal gift offerings, which cannot have substitutes.
  2. Because the animal tithe was singled out for substitution of its name — The Torah includes a case in which someone calls the tenth animal “ninth” and the eleventh “tenth”; both become sacred. The Torah therefore also had to state that ordinary substitution applies: if someone places a non-sacred animal beside the tithe animal and says, “This one is like that one,” it becomes a substitute. Otherwise, we might have thought that the tithe has only its unusual form of substitution.
  3. A substitute of its name is sacrificed — The verse includes the eleventh animal among the peace offerings.
  4. A substitute of its body is not sacrificed — This is derived by comparison with a firstborn animal: the firstborn itself is sacrificed, but its substitute is not.
  5. A substitute of its name can be redeemed — It is a peace offering, and a peace offering can be redeemed if it develops a blemish.
  6. A substitute of its body cannot be redeemed — The verse says of the animal tithe, “Both it and its substitute shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed.”
  7. Substitution of its body takes effect even on an unfit animal — This includes a blemished animal, because the animal tithe itself can become sacred despite a blemish. Consequently, it must be eaten under the restrictions of the animal tithe: it may not be slaughtered in a marketplace or sold by weight.
  8. Substitution of its name takes effect only on a fit animal — It must be fit to receive full sacrificial sanctity, like other offerings, which do not become sacred if already blemished when dedicated.
  9. The Gemara objects: Does the Torah’s inclusion of substitution of its name make the law less strict? — Why would substitution then fail to take effect on a blemished animal? If the animal tithe has this additional kind of substitution, one would expect its laws to be stricter, not weaker.
  10. The Torah included only what it included — The verse includes only an animal fit to be a peace offering, since it describes the eleventh animal as a peace offering.
  11. From where would that follow? — What is the basis for saying so?
  12. A novel matter — Substitution of its name.
  13. Another explanation: Substitution of its name takes effect only on a fit animal — That makes sense because the eleventh animal is treated like a peace offering. One might therefore think substitution of its body was also restricted; a verse was needed to include it.
  14. The Gemara answers: Yes; without a verse, we would say that the Torah included only what it included. But why assume that? — This is the real question: what basis is there for requiring a verse to include ordinary substitution? The answer is that the animal tithe was singled out for a novel law, substitution of its name, so one might allow only that novelty. This explanation is preferable: the verse that establishes the sanctity of a substitute of its name does not distinguish between blemished and unblemished animals, while the verse about a peace offering concerns sacrifice, not whether sanctity takes effect.
  15. Because he accepted it upon himself — He undertook to offer the burnt offering, even if he designated a particular animal by saying, “This one is a burnt offering.”
  16. Surplus funds — Examples include the value of a guilt offering set aside to graze until blemished, or money left after buying a sin offering or guilt offering. Such funds are used to buy burnt offerings, whose meat goes to God and whose hides go to the priests.
  17. They go toward communal gift offerings — The funds are placed in the Temple collection chests.
  18. Toward an individual gift offering — The owners themselves buy a burnt offering with the funds. It is a gift, not fulfillment of an obligation.
  19. Rabbi Eliezer — He holds that surplus funds go toward an individual offering. In the case of a substitute for a guilt offering and its descendants, he says they graze until blemished and are sold, and a burnt offering is bought with the proceeds.
  20. He agrees with him in one matter — Rabbi Shimon agrees that surplus funds go toward an individual gift offering. That is why he needs to exclude such an offering from the law of substitution.
  21. If so — If Rabbi Shimon holds that a burnt offering bought with surplus funds cannot produce a substitute, then even if no substitution was made while the animal had its earlier status, one cannot make one now: it is a burnt offering from surplus funds.
  22. And transferred its sanctity to another — Alternatively, the owner gained atonement through a different guilt offering, as explained earlier.
  23. Can he make a substitute again? — Rabbi Yochanan says, according to Rabbi Shimon, that after making one substitute a person cannot make another. Does that apply only while the offering retains its original sanctity, or also after its sanctity changes?
  24. If, according to Rabbi Shimon, this is learned from the animal tithe — That is, Rabbi Shimon learns from the tithe that substitution applies to an obligatory offering, excluding a burnt offering bought with surplus funds.
  25. If you find a sage who holds — Find one who agrees both with Rabbi Eliezer and with Rabbi Yochanan’s earlier statement that, according to Rabbi Shimon, one cannot make another substitute after making the first.
  26. Two animals and one sanctity—what is the ruling? — He designated a guilt offering to atone for him and substituted another animal for it. It then became blemished, and he transferred its sanctity to a different animal.
  27. Rather, two sanctities and one animal — He gained atonement through a different guilt offering. The first, which had been lost, was found and designated as a burnt offering.
  28. Tibbei — A term in the Jerusalem Talmud meaning that the question remains unresolved, like teiku in the Babylonian Talmud.
Tosafot on Temurah 13b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why was the animal tithe singled out? — In Rashi’s explanation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that no separate verse is needed to exclude communal and jointly owned offerings, since the entire passage on substitution is phrased in the singular. Nor is one needed to exclude property dedicated to Temple upkeep, which is not called an offering. And none is needed to exclude burnt offerings bought with leftover offering funds: he holds that those funds go toward communal voluntary offerings, which plainly cannot produce substitutes. Alternatively, he holds that the funds go toward an individual’s voluntary offering and agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that it can produce a substitute.
  2. To address substitution of its body — One might have thought that the animal tithe cannot produce a substitute at all, because it was singled out to teach a novel rule, as the Gemara explains. Alternatively, this teaches that substitution of its body takes effect even on an animal unfit for sacrifice. Rashi gives both explanations.
  3. Substitution of its name — This is when someone calls the tenth animal “ninth,” the ninth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth.” As established in Bekhorot 60, all three become consecrated.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 13.