Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 9 for kids: One Animal, Many Swaps

תמורה ט׳

🔁 This daf asks which animals can become substitutes for sacred animals, and whether one animal can have more than one substitute. It also asks when someone redeeming a blemished sacred animal must add one-fifth to its value.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 9a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 9b 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 9

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 9 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 9a, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Good for bad — A sound, non-sacred animal may not be substituted for a blemished sacred one. Yet the verse says, “If he substitutes,” showing that a blemished sacred animal can have a substitute. Substitution also takes effect on a blemished non-sacred animal, as “bad for good” means a blemished non-sacred animal substituted for a sound sacred one.
  2. And which is good for bad — That is, which blemished sacred animal can have a substitute? One that was consecrated before it became blemished. If it was blemished before consecration, it cannot have a substitute. The Gemara explains how this is derived.
  3. Let it say, “He shall not substitute it, good for bad or bad for it” — That would mean a bad animal may not be substituted for it, whether it is good or bad.
  4. Why do I need the second “good”? — It teaches that an animal sound when first consecrated can have a substitute, even if it later became blemished.
  5. “He shall not substitute it for bad” — This wording would imply that the sacred animal itself is good.
  6. “Or bad” — This would mean that a blemished non-sacred animal may not be substituted for a sound sacred one.
  7. Good for bad — A sound non-sacred animal for a blemished sacred one.
  8. Where he improves it — He improves the standing of the sacred animal and is still flogged. Surely, then, he is flogged for substituting good for good.
  9. One does not impose punishment by logical inference — Thus, the verse is needed: a person cannot be flogged for substituting good for good on the strength of an a fortiori inference alone.
  10. And Abaye would tell you this is not imposing punishment by logical inference, but merely clarifying the verse — By stating that one is flogged for substituting a sound non-sacred animal for a blemished sacred one, the verse also makes clear that he is flogged for substituting it for a sound sacred one.
  11. Is good any less than bad? — Is a sound sacred animal any less protected than a blemished sacred one? Just as a person is flogged for exchanging the blemished one, so he is flogged for exchanging the sound one. The Torah forbids exchanging any sacred animal.
  12. Exchange implies two people — It suggests exchanging one person’s animal for another’s. Why, then, is “nor substitute it” needed? Is one’s own animal any less subject to the prohibition than another person’s?
  13. Exchange means, “Let this one leave and that one enter” — Although this does not take effect, since a sound sacred animal cannot become non-sacred, the person should still be flogged for intending to remove it from sacred status.
  14. One may substitute one — One non-sacred animal.
  15. For two — Two sacred animals, by saying, “This one is in place of these.”
  16. And two — Two non-sacred animals for one sacred animal, by saying, “These are in place of this one.”
  17. Just as it is singular — As indicated by the verse’s word “it.”
  18. But Rabbi Shimon’s reason — Is his reason in the mishna not the verse, “Both it and its substitute shall be sacred”?
  19. And we answer: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon agrees one may substitute again and again — One may substitute another animal for the same originally consecrated animal, even a hundred times.
  20. Why? Where has the original sanctity of the first consecrated animal gone? — It remains able to confer sanctity on another substitute, even a thousand times. Alternatively, Rabbi said that the text reads: At first Rabbi Shimon cited “Both it and its substitute shall be sacred.” When he saw the Rabbis derive their view from “an animal for an animal,” he told them, “I too can derive my view from there.” On this reading, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish made an independent statement, not an answer to this objection.
Tosafot on Temurah 9a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. As it says, “He shall neither exchange it nor substitute it, good for bad or bad for good” — This means a good consecrated animal for a bad non-sacred one, or a bad consecrated animal for a good non-sacred one. As a rule, the first animal named is the consecrated one.
  2. Which is the case of good for bad? Blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish — This reverses the order used in the other cases: here the first animal named is the one that takes on sanctity.
  3. For Abaye, one occurrence of “for good” is extra — For Rava, both occurrences of “good” are extra, since the verse could have said, “Nor substitute it for bad or bad for it.” But Bekhorot 14b asks: If a bad consecrated animal cannot be substituted for a good non-sacred one, need it even say so for a good consecrated animal and a bad non-sacred one? This seems to make “good for bad” extra for excluding an animal blemished before its consecration, matching neither Abaye nor Rava. Besides, how could “good for bad” be unnecessary? It teaches that a bad non-sacred animal can take on sanctity in place of a good consecrated one. Rather, Bekhorot means that the Torah could have said, “Nor substitute it, bad for good or for bad.” It asks why the word “good” is needed, not why the whole phrase “good for bad” is needed. This agrees with Abaye.
  4. But Rabbi Shimon’s reason comes from “it”! Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon agrees that one may make a substitution and then make another — In his first interpretation, Rashi says this answers the objection and explains why “animal for animal” was written. But that is strained: for Rabbi Shimon, “animal” implies one, not two, so how could it teach that one may substitute again? In his second interpretation, Rashi reads the earlier text as: “Rabbi Shimon said to them: [I derive it] from ‘and it and its substitute.’” When he saw that the Rabbis derived their view from “animal for animal,” he told them he could derive his view from there too. On this reading, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish makes a separate statement; he is not answering the objection.
Rashi on Temurah 9b, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. And it became blemished — The first animal.
  2. And he transferred its sanctity to another and atoned with a different guilt offering — The second animal, onto which he transferred the first animal’s sanctity, was lost. He atoned with a third animal, and afterward the second was found.
  3. And it was consigned as a burnt offering — A guilt offering whose owner has atoned with another animal is ordinarily designated as a communal voluntary burnt offering. This is the rule for surplus offerings derived from the teaching of Jehoiada the priest in the chapter “The Offspring of a Sin Offering.”
  4. Can he effect substitution for it? — Since its sanctity comes from the first animal, for which he already effected substitution, perhaps he cannot. Or perhaps he can, because this is a different animal with a different sanctity: the first was a guilt offering, while this one is a burnt offering.
  5. If his question concerns two animals with one type of sanctity — Is substitution possible because it is a different animal, or impossible because its sanctity is the same?
  6. If so, he should ask about a case where the owner did not atone with another — He could ask: After substituting for a guilt offering, its owner transferred its sanctity, once it became blemished, to another animal. Can he substitute for that animal because it is a different body, or not because it derives from the first and both are guilt offerings? Why mention atonement with another offering?
  7. And if his question concerns two types of sanctity in one animal — He should ask without the blemish and transfer: The first guilt offering was lost, the owner atoned with another from his flock, and the first was found and consigned as a burnt offering. Can he substitute for it now that one animal has had two types of sanctity? Why describe both complications?
  8. One question arising from another — Rabbi Avin means, ‘If you say.’ He first asks whether substitution is possible when the blemished guilt offering’s sanctity was transferred to another animal: that is two animals with one type of sanctity.
  9. And if you say — Substitution is impossible in that case because substitution has already been effected under that same type of sanctity.
  10. What if there are two animals and two types of sanctity? — Suppose the second animal was lost, the owner atoned with another, and the second was found and consigned as a burnt offering. Can he substitute for it now that both the animal and its sanctity have changed, or not because its sanctity ultimately derives from the first? In an alternative Jerusalem-text reading, Rabbi Avin asks two questions: about another animal with the same sanctity after a blemish and transfer, and about the original animal with a different sanctity after it was lost, found, and consigned as a burnt offering.
  11. Abaye said: Which is his question? — Is Rabbi Avin asking about a different sanctity in the same animal, or the same sanctity in a different animal? Rabbi Avin’s questions are successive: ‘If you say.’ In this reading he does not ask about two animals with two types of sanctity; he treats a different animal with the same sanctity as the more difficult case.
  12. A second consecrated animal does not require an added fifth — For example, the first animal became blemished and its sanctity was transferred to another. That other animal is the second consecrated animal; if it too becomes blemished and is redeemed, no fifth is added. A substitute animal is also considered secondarily consecrated.
  13. He designated a guilt offering for atonement, and so forth — As above, the case involves two animals and two types of sanctity. What is the law?
  14. What is he asking? — Abaye initially understood Rabbi Avin as asking two separate questions, not one about two animals and two types of sanctity. The first would concern two animals with the same sanctity; the second, an original animal that was lost, found after atonement with another, and consigned as a burnt offering—one animal with two types of sanctity. Abaye asks which question is primary, so that Rabbi Avin could ask it directly and infer the other answer.
  15. If he is asking about two animals with one type of sanctity, he should ask without atonement with another — The first animal could become blemished, its sanctity be transferred to another with an added fifth, and the second animal then become blemished. Must a fifth be added when redeeming it? Perhaps not, because the sanctity is the same; perhaps so, because the animals differ. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s rule might instead concern transferring the sanctity of a blemished animal dedicated to Temple upkeep onto another blemished animal, adding nothing new. Here the second animal is fit for the altar, unlike the first, so its sanctity is new.
  16. If he is asking about two types of sanctity in one animal, he should ask without a prior blemish — The first animal could be lost, the owner atone with another, and the first then be found and consigned as a burnt offering. If it subsequently became blemished, would its redemption require a fifth? Perhaps it is secondary to the offering that brought atonement, so no fifth is added. Or perhaps its new type of sanctity makes it a first consecration for this purpose, requiring a fifth.
  17. One question arising from another — The latter part of Rabbi Avin’s question builds on the first; it is not a separate case. He asks about two animals with two types of sanctity.
  18. And if you say — This introduces the next stage of the same question.
  19. What is the law? — Since both the animal and its sanctity differ, perhaps this is not a second consecration and a fifth must be added: neither this animal nor this type of sanctity has yet incurred an added fifth. Or perhaps its sanctity ultimately derives from the first animal, making it a second consecration for purposes of the fifth. An alternative Jerusalem-text reading, like the earlier alternative reading of Rabbi Avin’s substitution question, explains the passage as two questions.
Tosafot on Temurah 9b, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. Rabbi Avin asked, according to the one who says… — The texts have two versions, and Rashi explains the second version of the Jerusalem Talmud. In brief: If a guilt offering became blemished, its sanctity was transferred to another animal, and the owner atoned with a different guilt offering—so that the transferred animal, after being lost and found, was designated as a burnt offering—there are two animals and two types of sanctity. If its sanctity was transferred but the owner did not atone with another guilt offering, there are two animals and one type of sanctity. If the animal did not become blemished but was lost, and after the owner atoned with another guilt offering it was found and designated as a burnt offering, there is one animal and two types of sanctity. In the second version, ‘and he atoned with another guilt offering’ means ‘or, alternatively, he atoned,’ making these two separate questions. The discussion of adding a fifth likewise has two versions.

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 9.