Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 2 for kids: Can You Swap It?

תמורה ב׳

🐑 This daf asks what happens when someone tries to substitute an animal for one that is already holy. The Sages discuss who can make a substitute, including women, heirs, minors, and gentiles.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 2a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 2b 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 2

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 2 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 2a, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Everyone substitutes — one says that this non-sacred animal is in place of that consecrated animal.
  2. Not that a person is permitted to substitute — for Scripture says, “He shall not substitute it.”
  3. The substitute takes effect — the non-sacred animal acquires sanctity, and both animals are consecrated.
  4. And incurs the forty lashes — for violating the prohibition “He shall not substitute it.”
  5. Not that a person is permitted—only after the fact? — This is a question: One may not substitute initially, but if one did, the substitution takes effect.
  6. He shall not substitute it — yet the mishna says “everyone substitutes,” which sounds as though it is permitted initially.
  7. Rather, this is what it teaches: Everyone effects substitution — This is the correct reading: The sanctity of substitution takes hold in an animal whether a man or a woman makes the declaration. It takes effect even after the fact if a woman substitutes, but no one is permitted to do so.
  8. An inheritor — if he substitutes an animal for an offering his father designated during his lifetime, the substitution takes effect.
  9. An inheritor places his hands — on an offering his father designated during his lifetime but died before sacrificing.
  10. What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason? — Why does he say an inheritor cannot effect substitution?
  11. He derives the beginning of consecration from its end — This is the correct reading: Substitution is treated as occurring at the beginning of an animal’s consecration.
  12. From the end of consecration — that is, placing hands on the offering, which occurs immediately before slaughter. Elsewhere, substitution is called the end of consecration because it follows the consecration of the original animal, and placing hands is not under discussion there. Here, compared with placing hands just before slaughter, substitution is called the beginning.
  13. From where do we know this? — From where do we know that an inheritor does not place his hands on the offering?
  14. “His offering” is written three times — in the passage on peace offerings in Leviticus, from “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings” through “If his offering is a goat.” Placing hands is mentioned in all three cases.
  15. But the verse says “his offering” — implying that a person places his hands on his own offering, not his father’s.
  16. Joint owners must place their hands — if two or three people share an offering, it is called “his offering” for each of them, and all place their hands on it.
  17. He does not accept this — Rabbi Yehuda holds that a jointly owned offering does not require placing hands, because it does not belong exclusively to any one owner. For him, “his offering” excludes his father’s offering.
  18. They are derived from one verse — “His offering” excludes an agent acting for either an Israelite or a gentile. A gentile’s own placing of hands needs no exclusion here: “The children of Israel shall place their hands” already teaches that Israelites do so and gentiles do not.
  19. That leaves him one instance — The remaining third occurrence of “his offering” excludes his father’s offering; otherwise, one might think an inherited offering counts as his own.
  20. To include the inheritor — The verse could have said simply, “If he substitutes animal for animal.” Its repeated wording, “If he shall at all substitute,” teaches that an inheritor’s substitution takes effect.
Tosafot on Temurah 2a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Mishnah: Everyone substitutes, both men and women — The Mishnah in Chullin says “Everyone may slaughter” without adding “both men and women.” Here the Gemara explains that, because the entire passage is phrased in the masculine, a verse is needed to include women.
  2. And incurs forty lashes — Why not say eighty, since the verse has two prohibitions, “He shall not alter it” and “nor substitute it”? One answer is that the Mishnah is not counting lashes precisely; it is saying that lashes are incurred. Another is that only forty are incurred: both prohibitions are needed, one for substituting for one’s own offering and one for another person’s, where that person has said, “Whoever wishes to substitute may do so.”
  3. This itself is difficult: “Everyone substitutes” suggests permission from the outset, but “not that a person is permitted to substitute” suggests effectiveness only after the fact — Why assume “Everyone substitutes” means permission? If it meant only that substitution takes effect after the fact, the Mishnah would say the same thing twice. A similar question arises at the start of Chullin. Rashi explains why the repetition would be useful here: the end teaches that the person receives forty lashes, though one might think speech alone is not punishable by lashes. But that leaves this Gemara’s question and answer difficult to understand. Rabbeinu Tam explains that “Everyone substitutes” is emphatic: even deliberate substitution takes effect and the animal may be offered, despite the person’s lashes. Yet a later verse includes inadvertent substitution alongside deliberate substitution, suggesting deliberate substitution is the simpler case. Rabbeinu Baruch says that later inclusion concerns lashes; Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens objects that inadvertent acts do not incur lashes. Manuscripts also differ over whether the later passage speaks of lashes or of consecration. Others distinguish the animal’s becoming sacred, which is more obvious when the act is deliberate, from its being offered, which the emphatic wording teaches even when the act is deliberate. Rabbi Yitzchak finds these explanations unconvincing: Rav Yehuda’s answer expressly mentions both men and women. He therefore explains that the emphatic wording concerns women. Since the passage is masculine, one might think the verse includes women only insofar as their substitutions become sacred, but not so that the animals may be offered. “Everyone substitutes” teaches that women’s substitutions may be offered just like men’s.
  4. The beginning of consecration — This refers to substitution, in contrast to placing hands on the offering, which occurs near slaughter and is called the end of consecration. Rashi notes that in Nazir, where placing hands is not under discussion, substitution is called the end of consecration: it follows the consecration of the original animal. Here, relative to placing hands, substitution is called the beginning.
  5. His offering, but not a gentile’s offering — Why is this needed when another verse already teaches that Israelites place hands on offerings but gentiles do not? Without “his offering,” one might think only that a gentile cannot personally place hands on his offering, while priests may do it for him. It teaches that no placing of hands applies to a gentile’s offering.
  6. And Rabbi Meir, who says an inheritor may substitute—what is his reason? — Why ask, when Rabbi Meir does not use “his offering” to exclude a father’s offering from placing hands? If an inheritor places hands, substitution should follow by the comparison between them. The answer is that without “if he shall at all substitute” to include an inheritor, Rabbi Meir would more readily use “his offering” to exclude an inheritor than to include every joint owner. Once the verse includes an inheritor in substitution, he includes the inheritor in placing hands and uses “his offering” to include joint owners. Why do other instances of “his offering” exclude, while this one includes? Excluding joint owners would be unnecessary: without a verse including them, they would not place hands, just as joint owners cannot effect substitution.
Rashi on Temurah 2b, in English Tab translation (35)
  1. This is the correct reading — He derives the law at the end of an animal’s consecration from the law at its beginning.
  2. A woman — Her act of substitution takes effect, and she is flogged for violating “he shall not substitute it.”
  3. Only in the masculine — The verse says “he shall not exchange it,” using the masculine form, rather than the feminine form “she shall not exchange it.”
  4. How do we ultimately include her? — That is, from where do we learn to include a woman?
  5. The verse states, “And if he shall at all substitute” — The verb is written twice.
  6. But according to Rabbi Meir — He needs “and if he shall at all substitute” to include an heir. From where does he derive that a woman is included?
  7. He derives it from the letter vav — The verse could have said “if he shall at all substitute,” but instead says “and if.”
  8. She would not be flogged — Because if she substituted an animal, the substitution would not take effect.
  9. The answer should read as follows: This applies to a prohibition involving an act — Women and men are equated in punishments for acts, as the verse says, “that they commit.” But substitution depends on speech, not an act, so one might think a woman would not be flogged. The verse teaches otherwise.
  10. Another version in the books reads: This applies to a punishment shared by an individual and the public — Only for such a punishment are women and men equated. But the public cannot effect substitution, as stated in the other chapter, where this is derived from the law of tithes.
  11. Who has not reached the age for vows — For example, a child under twelve. Tractate Nazir explains that “when a man shall clearly utter a vow” includes a discerning twelve-year-old nearing adulthood: if he understands to whom he vows or consecrates, his vow or consecration takes effect. Below that age, his words have no effect even if he understands; at thirteen, his acts take effect even if he does not.
  12. He cannot consecrate — As explained above, his words have no effect.
  13. Could he effect substitution? — This is a rhetorical question: how could he do so and thereby become liable to lashes?
  14. Who has reached the age for vows — A twelve-year-old whose vows are examined. If he understands to whom he made the vow, his act takes effect; otherwise, it does not.
  15. He is not subject to punishment — Not until age thirteen.
  16. The substitution does not take effect — The verses say, “He shall not exchange it or substitute it” and “both it and its substitute shall be holy.” This suggests that only someone subject to the prohibition and its punishment can make a substitute holy, excluding a minor.
  17. And even if you say a minor can effect substitution — This introduces a further question; it does not assert that he can.
  18. Since he can consecrate — Tractate Menachot derives from the repeated “any man” that gentiles, like Jews, may vow offerings and give voluntary offerings.
  19. He will never become subject to punishment — A gentile is never liable to lashes for this, whereas a minor becomes subject to punishment at thirteen years and one day.
  20. One may not benefit from them, but one is not liable for misuse — Someone who benefits from them does not bring a misuse offering, unlike someone who misuses other consecrated property. As explained below, the prohibition on benefiting from them is rabbinic.
  21. And one is not liable for them, and so on — As explained below.
  22. And they do not bring libations — This is the correct reading, without “for them.” Gentiles cannot offer libations on their own, as Jews can, but they do bring libations with their offerings. As tractate Shekalim states, a gentile’s burnt offering sent from overseas is accepted along with money for its libations; the offering itself requires libations.
  23. I see fit to be stringent in all of them — One may not benefit from these offerings, misuse liability applies, and one is liable for piggul, notar, and consuming them while ritually impure, as with other consecrated offerings. The exception is independent libations, which gentiles certainly cannot bring.
  24. When does this apply? — This refers back to the first sage’s statement: when did he say there is no misuse liability for a gentile’s animal offerings?
  25. But property consecrated for Temple maintenance — If a gentile consecrated it, misuse liability applies. The reason is explained in tractate Zevachim; some versions also include that explanation below in tractate Temurah.
  26. It teaches, at any rate — that animals consecrated by gentiles cannot be used to make substitutes. So resolve the question from this.
  27. He said to him: Regarding a gentile’s consecration — That does not settle the question. The teaching concerns a gentile who consecrated an animal for his own atonement.
  28. I had no question — A gentile’s consecration cannot produce a substitute, since he will never become subject to the punishment.
  29. And a Jew receives atonement — The gentile set the animal aside so that a Jew would receive atonement through it.
  30. Do we follow the one who consecrated it — He is a gentile, who will never become subject to the punishment, so the animal cannot produce a substitute?
  31. Or the one receiving atonement — He is a Jew and is subject to lashes?
  32. Read it this way: Resolve it from what Rabbi Abbahu said — later in the discussion.
  33. The one who consecrated it adds a fifth — If he wants to redeem what he consecrated, for example after the animal develops a blemish, he may do so but must add a fifth. One who makes a substitute does not add a fifth: the verse says, “If the one who consecrated it...” (Leviticus 27). A fifth is added for the original consecration, not for a second one such as a substitute. Another explanation: If someone consecrated a house or field, its owners must add a fifth to redeem it, as the verse says, “If the one who consecrated it redeems it, he shall add a fifth.” But if someone else redeems it, the Torah does not require a fifth.
  34. And the one receiving atonement can make a substitute — If a Jew sets aside an offering for another Jew’s atonement, and the one receiving atonement says, “This is in place of that,” the substitution takes effect and he is flogged. Since the offering was set aside for him, it is called his offering: we follow the one receiving atonement. So resolve the question from this.
  35. And one who separates a tithe — He separates it from his own produce to discharge another person’s obligation to tithe untithed produce.
Tosafot on Temurah 2b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. And they do not bring libations — Rashi explains that gentiles cannot bring libations on their own, as Jews can. Libations are brought with a gentile’s offering. As stated in tractate Shekalim, the court enacted that if a gentile sends his burnt offering and money for its libations from overseas, they are accepted. His offering certainly requires libations; when necessary, they are supplied from public funds.
  2. When does this apply? To offerings for the altar; but misuse applies to property dedicated to Temple upkeep — Rashi explains that this returns to Rabbi Shimon’s view. Rabbeinu Yitzhak explains instead that it concludes Rabbi Yosei’s statement: Rabbi Yosei would be stringent in all these matters, but Rabbi Shimon’s exemption from liability for misuse applies only to offerings for the altar. The Tosefta supports Rashi: it explicitly says that Rabbi Shimon agrees that misuse applies to property dedicated to Temple upkeep.
  3. In any event, it teaches that they cannot effect substitution — One might ask: Perhaps Rami bar Chama’s question follows Rabbi Yosei, who is stringent in all these matters? One answer is that the Gemara prefers to frame the question even according to Rabbi Shimon. Another is that it cannot follow Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei holds that substitution takes effect, one cannot say that this happens only through a Jew while Rami bar Chama’s question is whether a gentile can do it himself. For a Jew to effect the substitution, the gentile would have to say, ‘Whoever wishes to substitute may come and do so.’ If the gentile himself cannot effect substitution, how could one take effect this way?

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 2.