Translation:Talmud/Seder Kodashim/Tractate Temurah/2a

Mishnah

ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE,1 MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN; NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE,2 BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED,3 AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES.4

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?5 — 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!6 Rab Judah therefore said: What [the Mishnah] means is this: ALL PERSONS CAN EFFECT AN EXCHANGE,7 MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN;8 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?9 — It includes the case of an heir,10 and [the Mishnah] will not be in accordance with the view of R. Judah,11 for it has been taught:12 An heir can lay hands [on the head of a sacrifice];13 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 dedication14 from the case of a final act in the dedication.15 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?16 — Three times the expression his offerings17 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.18 But as for R. Meir, who rules that an heir can effect exchange [with his father's dedication], surely ‘his offering’ is written?19 — He needs this in order to include partners in a sacrifice20 as requiring to perform laying on of hands. And [what does] R. Judah] [say to this]?21 — He does not hold that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.22 What is the reason? Because their sacrifice is not designated.23 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 sacrifice24 from the one text.25 There is left over therefore one text, from which we derive that partners in a sacrifice must perform laying on of hands.26 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,27 to intimate that an heir can change.