meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Kodashim/Temurah/English/Wikisource Talmud.txt"}
text: Temurah
  תמורה
  Wikisource Talmud
  
  
  Temurah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  [Mishnah]  ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE, MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN;  NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED, AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. 
  [Gemarah]  [The Mishnah] contains a contradiction in itself. You say:  ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE, implying that it is [permissible to exchange in the first instance] and [then it says]:  NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, implying, only after it has been done?  
  — But how can you understand it that ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE in the first instance!  In that case, instead of bringing a contradiction from the Mishnah, you could rather bring it from the Scriptural verse, since it says:  He shall not alter it nor change it!(Leviticus 27:10) 
  Rab Judah therefore said:  What [the Mishnah] means is this: ALL PERSONS CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE, MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN;  NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED, AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. 
  What additional case is included by [the word] ALL?  — It includes the case of an heir, and [the Mishnah] will not be in accordance with the view of R. Judah, 
  for it has been taught:  An heir can lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice]; an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. This is the teaching of R. Meir;  whereas R. Judah says:  An heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice] nor can an heir effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. 
  What is R. Judah's reason?  — We infer the case of a preliminary act in the dedication from the case of a final act in the dedication. Just as in the case of the final act, an heir cannot lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice], so in the case of the preliminary act, an heir cannot effect exchange [with his father's dedication]. 
  And how do we know this in the case of laying on of hands itself? —  Three times the expression his offerings(Leviticus 3:1) is used:  One [intimates that] ‘his offering’ [requires laying on of hands], but not that of a gentile.  One [that] ‘his offering’, but not that of his fellow.  And one ‘his offering’ but not his father's dedication. 
  But as for R. Meir, who rules that an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication],  surely ‘his offering’ is written?  — He needs this in order to include partners in a sacrifice as requiring to perform laying on of hands. 
  And [what does] R. Judah] [say to this]? — He does not hold that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.  What is the reason?  Because their sacrifice is not designated. Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say that R. Judah may still be of the opinion [that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands] but he derives the cases both of the sacrifice of a gentile and a fellow's sacrifice from the one text. There is left over therefore one text, from which we derive that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands. 
  And as to R. Meir, who rules that an heir can exchange [with his father's dedication] what is his reason? —  He can tell you:  [Scripture says:] And if he shall at all change, to intimate that an heir can change.(Leviticus 27:10)