Temurah 26 – Double Exchange And No Exchange

If one had three animals in front of him: a burned offering, a peace offering, and a regular animal, and he declared, “Let this (regular) animal be an exchange for the burned offering, exchange for the peace offering,” then it became an exchange for the burned offering only – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir follows his view, which we saw before, that the first part of his statement is decisive.

Rabbi Yose says, “If that is what he intended from the outset, then, since it is impossible to utter two designations simultaneously, his declaration stands, but if he changed his mind in the process, it does not take effect.” Rabbi Yose is also consistent with his view, except that here he explicitly states his reason.

If one tried to make a sacrifice exchange but did not use the right term, for example, if he said, “Let this be deconsecrated onto that,” the exchange does not take place. However, if deconsecration was possible, such as when it was a sacrifice with a blemish, he effected the redemption. The new animal is consecrated, and if it is less expensive than the original one, he must add his money.

Art: Richard Ansdell - Feeding Goats in the Alhambra

Temurah 25 – Consecrating A Pregnant Animal

If one consecrates a pregnant animal as a sacrifice and says, “The fetus of this animal is designated as a burned offering, and she herself a peace offering,” then his declaration takes effect. Since he consecrated the fetus first, his subsequent declaration applies to mother only.

However, if he said, "I designate this animal as a peace offering and its fetus as a burned offering," then both the animal and the fetus are peace offerings. His first words take effect immediately, and the mother becomes a peace offering, with everything inside her – that is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. His ruling principle as that we always “seize upon the first expression,” that is, we view the first part of his statement as decisive, and ignore any contradicting subsequent declarations.

Rabbi Yose says that we ask him about his intent. If, from the outset, he wanted the mother to become a peace offering, and the fetus – a burned offering, then we view these desires as part of the same statement. It is impossible for a human to express both desires simultaneously, but only this prevented him from doing so, thus both his intentions takes effect. Rabbi Yose's principle is that both parts of one's statement are important. Only if he changed his mind in the middle, then his subsequent changes are ineffectual.

Art: Richard Ansdell - Highland Folk - Two Lambs, a Ewe and a Fox

Temurah 24 – The Conundrum of Surplus Funds From Sin Offering

If one had money designated to buy a sin offering, the sin offering was brought, but some funds still remained, what are we to do with it? On the one hand, we saw multiple cases where a left over sin offering is allowed to die, and the leftover money is thrown into the Dead Sea. On the other hand, that was true for complete offerings and bundles of money, but here we have leftovers. Yehoyada the Kohen proved that the leftover money can be used to bring burned offerings of the congregation. His proof was based on the double language of “guilt, guilt.” Since the second “guilt” was not needed, he applied it to sin offerings.

Since Yehoyada's proof was generally accepted and admired, why was there a need to formulate a similar ruling we just learned? – One might have thought that it applied only to leftovers of one sacrifice, and here we see that you can even mix the money of two.

A loophole to circumvent Kohen's rights in a firstborn animal: if one has in his flock an animal that is pregnant with her first offspring, he can says, “If it is pregnant with a male, let this male be consecrated as a burned offering.” There are also further combinations of his statements and possible multiple births of offspring of different genders.

Art: Richard Ansdell - A Ewe with Lambs and a Heron Beside a Loch

Temurah 23 – Lost Sin Offering

There are seven cases dealing with lost sin offerings. The first and the classic one was mentioned before: one designated an animal as a sin offering and it was lost, he offered another one in its stead, and then the first one was found – the first one is now left to die. A case parallel to this one: one designated coins for his sin offering, the coins were lost, he achieved atonement with another offering, and then the coins were found – he should take the coins to the Dead Sea and cast them into its waters.

Another case is when he found the money earlier: he designated money for his sin offering, then lost it, designated another set of coins, but before he could buy a new animal, the first money was found. If he now uses one of the piles of coins, he would have to throw the other one into the Dead Sea, as we just learned. Rather, he mixes the two piles, and uses some of that money for his sin offering. The remainder is now classified as a surplus remaining from a sin offering and, for reasons we will learn later, can be put into the Temple chest for voluntary communal offerings. Other cases are just as interesting, but there is no room for them in our short summary.

Art: John Singer Sargent - The Dead Sea

Temurah 22 – Child Of A Sin Offering

Earlier we mentioned that there are unfortunate cases when a sin offering cannot be used, but is instead locked in a room and left to die. Now we can explain those cases.

A child of a sin offering cannot atone for any sin, since it was not consecrated for that purpose. It is nevertheless consecrated as a sacrifice, and, lacking a purpose, represents one of these cases. Was the animal already pregnant when consecrated, or did it conceive after being consecrated – that is a subject of an earlier disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Bar Padda.

An exchange of a sin offering becomes consecrated. However, it cannot be offered as a sin offering, since consecrating the exchange it itself a sin.

A sin offering whose owner died is also left to die. Normally, a sacrifice is brought by the heirs of the deceased. However, a sin offering is no longer needed, since death itself serves as an atonement for one's sins.

A sin offering that has grown older than a year, or one that was lost and later found blemished, has a hope: if the owner already atoned for their sins with a different offering, it is left to die, but if he rather wanted to replace his defective sin offering with a valid one, then it is left to graze and sold when it gets a blemish, and the money is used for another sacrifice.

Art: George Shalders- Sheep Grazing

Temurah 21 – Firstborn And Tithe Animals, Redux

An animal cannot be designated as a firstborn, rather, it has to be born that way. Similarly, it becomes a tithe by happening to come out as the tenth, when the owner counts them coming out of a coral. Therefore, when one designates exchanges for them, these exchanges cannot be brought on the Altar. However, they do acquire other qualities of the firstborn and the tithe: they are let to graze, and when they get a blemish, they can be eaten by their owner. In this they are different from regular sacrifices: upon getting a blemish, they need no redemption and can be eaten by the owner, but regular sacrifices remain sanctified and require redemption.

Another difference: the meat of the firstborn and tithe animals cannot be sold in a market, nor weighed out with weights, since this is degrading, and the owner has to take a loss on that. On the other hand, the meat of regular sacrifices that became blemished and were redeemed, can be sold in the market and weighed out in the regular way. This will fetch them a higher price, which is desired, because that money will be used to buy the next sacrifice.

Art: Pieter Aertsen - Market scene (detail)

Temurah 20 – Guilt Offering Can Be Only A Male Animal

Since guilt offering can only be a male, if one consecrates a female animal for this purpose, his consecration is invalid. Nevertheless, the animal's value does become consecrated, and this consecration spreads throughout the body of the animal. It cannot be brought on the Altar, but one has to let it graze until it gets a blemish, then sell it, and bring another, male animal for one's guilt offering. If meanwhile he already brought his guilt offering, this money is put into a collection box in the Temple, to buy sacrifices for the time when the Altar is idle.

Incidentally, we see a principle that monetary sanctification leads to the full sanctification of the body. For example, if one designated a ram for its value, planning to sell it and buy another sacrifice, the ram itself becomes a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this principle. Therefore, he says that the original guilt offering never became sanctified, and may be sold even without a blemish.

Other cases where an animal is sent to graze nclude the exchange of a guilt-offering – for nothing else can be done with it - and offspring, and the offspring of its offspring, ad infinitum.

Art: Rosa Bonheur - Heads Of Sheep And Rams