Temurah 13 – No Exchanges For Birds And Flour

Birds and flour offering cannot make an exchange, that is, if one says, “Let this bird be a substitute for that bird which is a sacrifice,” his words have no effect whatsoever. The Torah said, “If one does substitute an animal...” – only animals are included in this law, but not birds, and not flour.

Likewise, the community and partners cannot make an exchange with their offering, since the Torah stated, “He shall not exchange.” This tells us that only “he” is included in this law, not community or partners.

Rabbi Shimon says that the derivation is different: animal tithe was included in the laws of exchange, together with all other animals. When the Torah then repeated this, it is teaching us something new, namely, the exception that “improves” the rule, that is, teaches something about it. Just as tithe can only separated by an individual, so too exchange can only done by an individual. Parenthetically, just as tithe is an Altar offering, so should be animals subject to exchange – which excludes offerings made for Temple maintenance.

Art: John Frederick Herring Snr - Still life of dead birds, fruit, vegetables, a bottle and a jar

Temurah 12 – When Calculations Determine The Law

If one accidentally dropped grain of the Kohen's portion (terumah) into regular grain, all of the grain becomes forbidden for anyone but a Kohen to eat. However, if the amount of the kohen's portion grain was less than 1% of the regular grain, the terumah is nullified, and the complete mixture is permitted. What happens when the terumah was not nullified, and some of the mixture fell into another pile of grain? We calculate the percentage of the initial terumah portion in comparison to the total, and this gives us a leniency. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to the him, the complete forbidden mixture acquires the status of terumah, with the full power to prohibit the grain it falls into.

Tangentially, when one prepares waters mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, to purify people and vessels after contact with a dead body, one has to put the ashes on the water, not the other way around. Rabbi Shimon says that either order is acceptable, because the Torah compares it to water with earth used to remove suspicion of adultery. Just as there any order is acceptable, so too here. And the first teacher? He says that the last words in the phrase, “put ashes on the water” determine the order: the ash is what makes the water purifying, and we find the same rule in many other places.

Art: Rudolf August Wilhelm Lehmann - Sifting The Grain

Temurah 11 – Sanctifying A Fetus Of An Animal

Earlier we discussed substituting a sacrifice that is yet unborn – a fetus – for another animal. But can a fetus be sanctified as a sacrifice? Bar Padda holds that it cannot, and Rabbi Yochanan says that it can. They asked Bar Padda about multiple rules of sanctifying a fetus, and he answered that all these rules dealt with sanctifying the value of the fetus, donating money to the needs of the Temple, but not the animal itself. Finally, they challenged him from our previous ruling about substituting a fetus which was a sacrifice. In this case he answered that we are dealing with their mother who already was a sacrifice, thus the offspring became sacrifice automatically.

What happens when one sanctifies a limb of a live animal as a sacrifice? If this limb is so important that the animal could not survive without it, all agree that the sanctification spreads throughout  the body of the animal. If the animal can survive, some say that the sanctification still spreads, while others say that it doesn't. They asked about a leg of a bird, is it the same? On the one hand, a bird is not an animal, so the law may be different, but on the other hand, it is also a sacrifice? – and did not find an answer.

Art: Adriaen van Utrecht - Still-Life with Birds on a Ring

Temurah 10 – Sacrificial Exchange of Limbs

One cannot make an exchange of unconsecrated limbs for consecrated fetuses, that is, he cannot say, “Let a leg of this regular animal be substituted for the consecrated fetus that is in the womb of this animal (later one we will discuss how the unborn fetus can become consecrated). Neither can one consecrate unconsecrated fetuses for limbs.

One cannot substitute unconsecrated fetuses or limbs for the whole peace offerings, nor unconsecrated whole animals for fetuses or limbs. Here Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that one can substitute limbs for sacrifices, and here is why: if one consecrates a limb of an animal to be a sacrifice, then the consecrations spreads throughout the animal and the complete animal becomes sacrifice, and our exchange is the same. What about the first teacher, why doesn't he agree to this? – While he may agree to the principle that the sanctification of a leg of a primary sacrifice spreads throughout its whole body, he does not agree that this also applies in the case of exchange.

Art: John Lawson - Feeding The Lamb

Temurah 9 – Exchange And Substitute – What Is The Difference?

One can make a (prohibited) sacrifice exchange of flock for cattle and cattle for flock, sheep for goats, males for females, unblemished for blemished, and even blemished for unblemished – and this it the “bad for good or good for bad” that the Torah meant.

Actually, the Torah said, “Don't exchange and don't substitute.” What is the difference between the two? Exchange means for another's animal, and substitute – for one's own. But we just learned that one cannot use another's animal for exchange?! – We are dealing with the case of one who sanctified his animal with these words: “Let this be a sacrifice, and anyone who wants to use it for an exchange, can use it.”

One can exchange one sacrificial animal for two, two for one, and even a hundred for one (and get a hundred sets of lashes for that). Rabbi Shimon says that one can exchange only one for one, since the Torah said “It (one) and its exchange (also one) will be holy.” What can the Sages answer? They say that “animal” (behemah) sometimes means multiple, like in the case of Jonah, who said, “and many animals” (behemah rabah). How can Rabbi Shimon defend himself now? – “Behemah rabah” indeed means many animals, but just “behemah” means only one.

Art: Charles Ferdinand Ceramano - A shepherdess with her flock before a storm

Temurah 8 – You Can Only Make An Exchange For Your Own Sacrifice

The exchange is effected by saying “Let this animal become a sacrifice instead of that one.” “That one” animal, on which the exchange is based, must be his, otherwise, the declaration does not work. Therefore, Kohanim can make exchanges for animals that they sacrifice and that belong to them. However, they can't make exchanges for animals that were given over to them by a Jew to be sacrificed – despite the fact that after it is slaughtered, they can eat its meat. Regular Jew can make exchange for his sacrifices, even though by now the sacrifice really belong to the Temple – but he has some ownership in it, since the sacrifice achieves his atonement.

Even though a first-born animal is given over to a Kohen and is his property, the Kohen cannot make exchange for it. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked, “Why not?” Rabbi Akiva explained, “They are like all other sacrifices.” Rabbi Yochanan objected, “But a first-born is his property!” Rabbi Akiva replied, “When did the first-born become sanctified? When it was born, in the house of its owner! It and its exchange must be in the same domain, but now it is in the hand of the Kohen, thus exchange is not possible.”

Art: William-Adolphe Bouguereau - A Newborn Lamb

Temurah 7 – Five Prohibitions To Bring A Blemished Sacrifice

In analyzing the question whether one can effectively perform acts forbidden by the Torah, the Talmud used the case of sanctifying a blemished sacrifice (in its tenth challenge), and Rava had to explain how this sanctification at all takes effect. Now the Talmud proves that which it previously took for granted.

The Torah said, “A sacrifice with a blemish you shall not offer”. Since the prohibition to slaughter was already stated before, this “you shall not offer” must mean, “you shall not consecrate.” From here we see that one who consecrates a blemished animal and burns this sacrifice on the Altar, transgresses fives times: “do not consecrate,” “do not slaughter,” “do not throw the blood,” “do not burn all of it,” and “do not burn part of it.” Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehudah adds one more for receiving its blood.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Yose? The Torah said, “Any sacrifice which is blemished you shall not offer... any whose testicles are crushed... you shall not offer... from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer.” The third “you shall not offer” is extra and applies to another law – receiving the blood. And the first teacher, why doesn't he agree? – He says that this is the normal language of the Torah, and nothing is to be derived from it.

Art: Albrecht Durer - Portrait of a stranger