Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 27 for kids: What Does “In Place” Mean?

תמורה כ״ז

🤝 This daf asks what someone means when he says one animal is “in place of” another. It also asks how to check an animal’s value and which words make a statement about an offering work.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 27a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 27b 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 27

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 27 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 27a, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. “But if it remains in its place” — The spot remains where it was. This resembles substitution, in which the original consecrated animal retains its sanctity. Since “in place of” can mean either substitution or desacralization, Scripture leaves it to the sages to determine which meaning applies in each case.
  2. With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, etc. —
  3. His hand is on the consecrated animal; it becomes non-sacred — If he rests his hand on the consecrated animal and says, “This is in place of that,” he means for the consecrated animal to become non-sacred.
  4. His hand is on the non-sacred animal — If he says, “This is in place of that,” he means substitution. A blemished consecrated animal can produce a substitute; had he wanted to desacralize it, he would have rested his hand on it.
  5. And he said, “These are in place of those” — He rested his hand on neither group.
  6. Substitution — Did he mean substitution or desacralization? Abaye could have asked about one animal, but because his next question concerns two, he phrased this one about two as well.
  7. A prohibition — The prohibition against making a substitute.
  8. An unblemished animal in place of an unblemished animal means substitution — At least one pairing must be substitution, since one consecrated animal is unblemished and cannot be desacralized here. As stated above, with unblemished animals, the expression means substitution.
  9. And a blemished animal in place of a blemished animal means desacralization — It cannot mean substitution, since Scripture does not provide for making a blemished animal a substitute for a blemished animal.
  10. Or perhaps an unblemished non-sacred animal in place of a blemished one, etc. — Although the Gemara concluded above that a person does not choose a prohibited act over a permitted one, the question remains here: Since one pairing must involve a prohibition, perhaps he did not mind committing the prohibition with the other pairing too, and intended substitution.
  11. If three animals stood before him, etc. — Although we concluded that a person does not choose a prohibited act over a permitted one, perhaps we follow the majority here. Two of the consecrated animals are unblemished and cannot be desacralized, so two pairings must be substitutions; perhaps the third is a substitution too.
  12. The person has not established a pattern — A pattern is established by three occurrences, not two. In a Jerusalem Talmud version, Abaye asks: Perhaps an unblemished animal in place of an unblemished one means substitution, since the consecrated animal is fit for sacrifice, but an unblemished animal in place of a blemished consecrated one means desacralization. Alternatively, since he used one expression for both, rather than specifying substitution for one and desacralization for the other, perhaps he treated both alike as substitutions; had he meant to desacralize the blemished one, he should have rested his hand on it. With three consecrated animals, one blemished, and three unblemished non-sacred animals, perhaps all three are substitutions: two non-sacred animals can be substituted for one consecrated animal, and the unblemished consecrated animals cannot be desacralized. He would then receive three sets of lashes. Or perhaps he meant to desacralize the blemished animal, despite resting his hand on the non-sacred animals rather than on it. Rashi adds that resting his hand on an unblemished consecrated animal beside the blemished one could also serve for desacralizing the blemished one; the unblemished animal would still be involved in substitution, since it cannot be desacralized. Another question concerns three consecrated animals, one blemished, lined up opposite three unblemished non-sacred animals, with his hand on the non-sacred animals. Does lining them up one opposite one show that he meant to desacralize the blemished one, unlike the others? Or do his words and his hand on the non-sacred animals show that he meant substitution? Another version of the last possibility asks whether we follow the majority: since most pairings are substitutions, perhaps this one is too.
  13. It becomes non-sacred by Torah law — As taught in Tractate Menaḥot, the verse “And if it is any impure animal” refers to blemished animals that have been redeemed.
  14. By rabbinic law — By Torah law, the prohibition against unfair pricing does not apply to consecrated property, for the verse says, “Do not wrong one another,” excluding consecrated property.
  15. He must also make up its value by Torah law — Rav Ḥisda explains this below.
  16. If we say it concerns unfair pricing — The price differed from its value by only one-sixth.
  17. Cancellation of the sale — The price differed from its value by more than one-sixth.
Tosafot on Temurah 27a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Rabbi Ashi asked: If two animals stood before him — He could have asked the same question about one blemished consecrated animal and one unblemished non-sacred animal. He mentioned two here because the nearby questions specifically involve two animals.
  2. A blemished animal in place of a blemished animal: desacralization, or perhaps two substitutions, for which he receives lashes twice — Why spell out both pairings? He could simply have asked whether the blemished animal placed in place of the blemished animal is also a substitute. Rashi explains that a blemished animal cannot substitute for another blemished animal; substitution works only between an unblemished and a blemished animal. But we find no such rule. Indeed, the discussion earlier in the first chapter of Temurah (9a) implies that a blemished animal can substitute for another blemished animal. Still, this whole discussion seems to support Rashi: the previous question also speaks of two unblemished non-sacred animals, not a blemished one. Rabbi Yehuda explains that substitution does take effect between two blemished animals, but it is more reasonable to understand the statement as desacralization. Why make a substitute when the new animal is no more fit for sacrifice than the original?
  3. Even the requirement to make up its value is biblical law — The animal does not become non-sacred until its value is made up. Thus, when the Mishnah says, ‘It becomes non-sacred, and he must make up its value,’ it means that it becomes non-sacred once he makes up its value. The Mishnah mentions this form of desacralization because the expressions it listed earlier produce only substitution, leaving both animals consecrated.
Rashi on Temurah 27b, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. But didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say — this in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s name about non-sacred land, while Rabbi Yona said it in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s name about consecrated property?
  2. They are not subject to the law of overcharging, but a sale involving them can be canceled — if the disparity is more than one-sixth, the wronged party can undo the sale. This makes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements contradict each other according to Rabbi Yona.
  3. Reverse the attributions — Rabbi Yoḥanan said the difference must be paid by Torah law, and Reish Lakish said it must be paid by rabbinic law.
  4. This works well — for Rabbi Yona, who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan allows a sale of consecrated property to be canceled, even though the verse says “his fellow.” All the more so would this apply to land, so reversing the attributions resolves the difficulty.
  5. But for Rabbi Yirmeya — if you reverse the attributions, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements contradict each other.
  6. Rabbi Yirmeya would tell you not to reverse the attributions — Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view is as first stated. Rabbi Yona reverses them to resolve the difficulty according to his own view.
  7. No, both sages accept Shmuel’s ruling — if someone intended to transfer the sanctity of consecrated property onto a lesser sum, the transfer certainly takes effect, even if he meant to shortchange the Temple. But Reish Lakish says payment is required by Torah law because the person did not intend to use a lesser sum; he thought the non-sacred money equaled the property’s value. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that he intended the transfer to take effect at that sum.
  8. And if you wish, say that even Rabbi Yona need not reverse the attributions — Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish are discussing a disparity of one-sixth, not cancellation of a sale. The mishna poses no difficulty for Reish Lakish: he explains it as Rav Ḥisda does, that even for less than one-sixth the wronged party can demand redress. The verse limits payment for a one-sixth disparity to dealings with one’s fellow, where a smaller disparity is not paid; with consecrated property, redress is due even for a smaller disparity. That is what Reish Lakish calls Torah law. Rabbi Yoḥanan reads the mishna in its plain sense. Neither he nor Rabbi Yirmeya has said anything here about cancellation of a sale.
  9. They said payment is required — that a private person must pay the Temple treasury the entire difference only when two people first assessed the property incorrectly and three others later assessed it at a higher value.
  10. But if three assessed it — from the outset, their assessment stands, even if one hundred later say that the first three erred.
  11. And even three against three — if just three later assessors contradict the first three, the Temple treasury has the advantage, and we follow the later assessment.
  12. ‘This in place of that sin offering’ — the sin offering was standing before him.
  13. ‘These are for a burnt offering’ — this means their value is for a burnt offering. Had he meant to offer the animals themselves, he would have said, ‘These are a burnt offering.’
  14. The mishna — which says that declaring an animal ‘in place of a sin offering’ or ‘in place of a burnt offering’ accomplishes nothing—does not follow Rabbi Meir. He holds that the person must pay its market value: knowing that the Torah sets no fixed valuation for a child under one month old, the person intended to pledge its value.
  15. No blemish is needed — they need not be left to graze until they develop a blemish, since they are already unfit for sacrifice.
  16. But designating a female animal, and so forth, requires a blemish — because it is fit to be offered as a peace offering.
  17. Not according to Rabbi Shimon — who says that a female animal designated as a guilt offering may be sold without a blemish. Alternatively: The animal itself becomes consecrated and must be left to graze; this is not according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that a female animal designated as a burnt offering cannot even produce a substitute, showing that its body is not consecrated.
Tosafot on Temurah 27b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Both agree with Shmuel — Rashi explains that if someone deliberately intended to redeem consecrated property for less than its value, the redemption certainly takes effect. Reish Lakish requires him to make up the value by Torah law in a different case: he thought the non-sacred property he gave was worth as much as the consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even then, he intended the redemption to take effect. Thus, when the Gemara says Shmuel’s ruling applies only ‘after the fact,’ it means an act one may not do initially, such as deliberately redeeming property for too little. It does not, according to Rabbi Yona, cover a permissible act in which the person mistakenly thought the values were equal. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that Shmuel’s ruling covers even that case. We cannot read ‘after the fact’ and ‘initially’ simply as referring to when redemption is or is not permitted: that would imply that one may initially cheat consecrated property, and that Rabbi Yirmeya permits initially redeeming property worth one hundred dinars for a peruta. Also, Shmuel’s word ‘redeemed’ describes an act already done, and Sanhedrin 14b derives from Scripture that redeeming consecrated property requires nine Israelites and a priest. We must therefore explain it as Rashi does.
  2. They said this only when two appraised it — That is, when the Gemara says that even a disparity of less than one-sixth must be repaid, it means that the private person must pay the shortfall to the Temple treasury, though the redemption takes effect. But Sanhedrin 88a implies that even redeeming a small consecrated hook requires appraisers: it describes a rebellious elder who disputes the court over Rabbi Eliezer’s and the Sages’ views on this matter. The elder is liable only for a dispute that can lead to liability for a sin offering. There, if consecrated property was redeemed with three appraisers, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it remains consecrated, so a subsequent betrothal using it is invalid; the Sages hold that it became non-sacred, so the betrothal is valid. This shows that the required number—ten or three, depending on the view—is indispensable. Yet here redemption seems to take effect with only two appraisers. And how can Shmuel say it takes effect for a peruta? We must distinguish an owner redeeming his own consecrated property, as here and in Shmuel’s ruling, from a treasurer selling consecrated property; the latter requires three or ten appraisers, depending on the view.
  3. The mishna does not follow Rabbi Meir — The mishna says that if someone declares, ‘In place of a sin offering’ or ‘in place of a burnt offering,’ his words have no effect. But Rabbi Meir holds that a person does not speak to no purpose; here, too, he would mean the sin offering or burnt offering he has at home. Others explain that this refers to the mishna’s ruling that if someone declares an impure or blemished animal ‘a burnt offering,’ his words have no effect. According to Rabbi Meir, he would instead mean that its monetary value is dedicated toward a burnt offering.

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 27.