The Eddie and B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). Masechet Temurah (Tractate Temurah) has been dedicated by our good friend Rabbi Shlomo ben Shmuel for hatzlachah, success, for his wife, Simchah bat Bahirah, sheteled besha'ah tovah umutzlachat, that she should give birth at a good and successful time, ul'hatzlachat banav hayekarim, for the success of his dear sons, Shmuel, Avraham, and Sha'ul ben Simchah, shekulam yigdelu l'Torah, ul'mitzvot, ul'chuppah, uma'asim tovim, that they should all grow to Torah, mitzvot, marriage, and good deeds, amen ve'amen. Daf Kaf-Vav (page twenty-six). Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat, for the elevation of the soul of, Avraham ben Ester and Yosef ben Sabut. Ruach Hashem tenichem beGan Eden (May the spirit of God place them in the Garden of Eden). Amen.
We begin today's daf on Kaf-Heh amud Bet (page twenty-five, side two). We are starting from the Mishnah at the bottom of the daf. “Harei zo temurat olah (burnt offering), temurat shelamim (peace offering), harei zo temurat olah, divrei Rabbi Meir” (This is the substitute of a burnt offering, the substitute of a peace offering; this is the substitute of a burnt offering, the words of Rabbi Meir).
The guy said two things. He said, “Make it temurah (a substitute offering).” He said two things consecutively: temurat olah, temurat shelamim. So what takes effect, what is chal? Harei zeh temurat olah. Why? “Tefos lashon, lashon rishon ikar,” grasp the first expression; the first expression is primary. We always saw Rabbi Meir rule that way, and then the second lashon is not chal.
Rabbi Yosei says, “Im lachen nitkaven techilah.” If the guy's kavanah—his intention—was really to say olah and then shelamim, his da'at, his intent, at the beginning was that he wanted the two temurot to be chal. How? You can't have the two temurot chal because you can't say it in one shot. “Ho'il ve'i efshar likrot shenei shemot ke'achat, devarav kayamim.” So then the animal has what? It has a din (status) of temurat olah and temurat shelamim. Both. You have to follow the chumrot, the stringencies, of both. It's a guy who really wanted both. He wasn't nimlach, having second thoughts. He really wanted both, but you can't say “Zachor veshamor bedibbur echad” (Remember and observe in one utterance); you can't say it in one dibbur, one utterance, so you have to say both. Therefore, he said not only tefos lashon rishon, but also tefos lashon acharon.
“Aval im mishe'amar temurat olah nimlach ve'amar temurat shelamim.” But if he changed his mind—he originally said temurat olah, then said, “Oh, you know, I changed my mind. I want temurat shelamim”—“harei zo olah.” Then I agree with you. But if he wanted both, both. Rabbi Meir would say, “No, even if you wanted both, tefos lashon rishon.”
Look at Rashi. “Harei zo temurat olah, deRabbi Meir it lei tefos lashon rishon.” At the bottom in Rashi: “Tefos lashon rishon.” The first lashon always goes first. “Devarav kayamim, vechetzyah temurat olah vechetzyah temurat shelamim.” That's what Rabbi Yosei says: half and half. What do you do with that? “Vetir'eh ad shetista'ev” (It shall graze until it becomes blemished), “vetimacher, veyavi bidmei chetzyah temurat olah uvidmei chetzyah temurat shelamim.” Then sell it, and use half the money to buy an olah and half the money to buy a shelamim.
“Hacha askinan keshehayu lefanav olah ushelamim, ushemirato bahen.” This means, yes, obviously, you say temurah when you have an olah and a shelamim in front of you. You had two animals in front of you and one animal over here. So he said, “Harei zo temurat olah, temurat shelamim.” According to Rabbi Meir, tefos lashon rishon: he said olah, finished—olah, goodbye, game over. According to Rabbi Yosei, no: he wanted it to be both, but you can't say both in one shot, and therefore gam lashon acharon is ikar. But what do you do with this temurah, which is half and half? You sell it, and with half the money you get a shelamim and with half you get an olah.
The Gemara begins: “Amar Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef amar Rabbi Yochanan: hakol modim.” Everybody agrees about “be'omer tachul zo ve'achar kach tachul zo.” He did it separately: “I want this to be this, and then I want this to be this. I mean, I want the olah and then I want the shelamim.” According to everyone, tefos lashon rishon: that's for sure. When you say it consecutively, one after the other, everybody says the first lashon is primary. “Lo tachul zo ela im ken chaltah zo.” But if he says explicitly, “I don't want the other one to take effect unless this one takes effect also,” then he's doing it practically simultaneously: “I don't want this to take effect unless the other one takes effect.” He's explicitly saying, “I want both.” Everybody agrees, “tarvaihu kadshi”: both will be kadosh.
Where is the machloket (dispute)? “Lo nechleku ela kegon mishnateinu d'amar temurat olah temurat shelamim.” He didn't say anything explicitly. He didn't make anything explicit: “Temurat olah, temurat shelamim.” Rabbi Meir holds that if he really wanted both, he would have said “temurat olah ushlamim.” He didn't say that; he said “temurat olah, temurat shelamim.” That's like saying, “This should take effect, and afterward that should take effect.” And when you say one after the other, only the first one is chal.
Rabbi Yosei holds that if he had said “temurat olah ushlamim,” we might have thought his intention was “kedushah (holiness) ve'einah kereivah”: it sounds like he wants it to be kadosh, but not to bring it as a korban (offering). The person making the declaration thought that the animal would have a mixture of olah and shelamim sanctity, in a way that would make it impossible to offer. The Gemara teaches us that when he said the words separately—“temurat olah, temurat shelamim”—his kavanah was for the animal to have the full kedushah of an olah and the full kedushah of a shelamim. He just thought that if he did that, he would be able to bring it as a korban. He doesn't know the halachah (Jewish law), this guy. He thinks that if he says “temurat olah ushlamim,” he won't be able to bring it as a korban.
So he says, “koshkosh koshkosh”: you can't have it be, “I want it to be half this, half that.” He thinks he's going to say “temurat olah, temurat shelamim”; he wants both on the animal and thinks that doing that will allow him to bring it as a korban. You can't bring it as a korban in that case either, by the way. But in his mind, he's thinking: don't ask me why I didn't say “temurat olah ushlamim.” The reason I didn't say that is because I know that if I say it, I can't bring it as a korban. So I said “temurat olah, temurat shelamim,” but I really meant that I want both. But I can't say both simultaneously, so therefore he means that he wants temurah of both. Even though he didn't say “temurat olah ushlamim,” and said each one separately, he did it for a reason. The Gemara is going to explain why he separated them: he had a logic. It's still considered two kedushot, and you have to sell it and do whatever you have to do.
“VeRabbanan: ha'omer behemah zo chetzyah temurat olah vechetzyah temurat shelamim.” Now we're talking about a case we haven't seen yet. Until now, we were discussing a guy putting full kedushah on the animal. This guy wants to put half temurat olah and half temurat shelamim. “Kulah tikrav olah.” What's the logic? Once he said half olah, it spreads. That's it: the olah extends from half to the rest of the animal. The expression “shelamim” means nothing. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Again, it's tefos lashon rishon: take lashon rishon. Lashon rishon was olah, and then it spreads through the whole animal. That's it.
“Vachachamim omrim tir'eh ad shetista'ev vetimacher.” Let it graze until it becomes blemished, for pidyon, redemption; sell it, and what do you do with the money? “Veyavi bidmei chetzyah temurat olah uvidmei chetzyah temurat shelamim.” Both apply to it, so now you have to buy two korbanot: a temurat olah and a temurat shelamim. Again, tafsei tarvaihu: both can be chal. He wants both to be chal, but he can't say it in one shot. How is he going to say it? He meant for both to be chal, half of this and half of that, so they have no choice but to sell it and buy with the money what they need.
“Amar Rabbi Yosei: im lekach nitkaven mitechilah.” Rabbi Yosei says that if his kavanah, his intention, from the outset was really to have half for one and half for the other, fine: “Ho'il ve'i efshar lehotzi shenei shemot ke'echad, devarav kayamim.” The halachah Rabbi Yosei is stating is exactly what the Rabbis said. So the Gemara asks, “Rabbi Yosei hainu Rabbanan?” It's the same thing the Rabbis said: both are chal. But then what? “Kulah Rabbi Yosei katani lah.” The whole baraita (early rabbinic teaching) is Rabbi Yosei; the Chachamim in the baraita are Rabbi Yosei. “In hachi nami.” Simple.
“Tanya idach,” we have another baraita: “behemah chetzyah olah vechetzyah chatat.” What is it? The first opinion says, “Tikrav olah.” It's the same thing: Rabbi Meir is consistent. Why? Once you say olah, tefos lashon rishon; the whole thing becomes an olah, so disregard what he said about chatat. Rabbi Yosei says, “Tamut.” Why should it die? What's the status of temurat chatat? Temurat chatat is one of the five chata'ot metot (sin offerings that must die), and therefore mitah, death. This means that when a guy says two expressions, he means both. And therefore you can't kill half the animal, so you have to kill the animal.
“Veshavin be'omer chetzyah chatat vechetzyah olah shetamut.” If he said chatat first, even Rabbi Meir will say tamut, because of tefos lashon rishon: the chatat applies to the whole animal, so it's temurat chatat. Yes, he wants it to be temurat chatat. He said, “Temurat chatat, temurat olah.” No, he had a chatat over here. He said, “I want this to be temurat chatat, temurat olah.” Even Rabbi Meir will say tefos lashon rishon: that has mitah, so we have no other choice.
The only machloket was in a case where he said olah first. In the first case, he said olah; it is an olah. Tefos lashon rishon: the whole thing spreads and becomes an olah. Bring it; it's temurat olah. The temurat olah takes effect. The chatat is the problem. Rabbi Yosei holds that you say both. If you say both, it's half olah, half chatat, and once it's half chatat, it's chatat and you have to put it to death. Everybody agrees if he said chatat first, it will be that way.
So the Gemara asks, “Shavin mani?” When it says “veshavin,” that they both agree, who is the “shavin”? “Shavin mani?” Rabbi Meir! Well, that's obvious. What did you need that case of “shavin” for? To show that even Rabbi Meir agrees if he said chatat first? Of course: he holds tefos lashon rishon. Usually, when you say “veshavin,” you give me a little chiddush, a novel point—that everybody agrees in this case. Of course everybody agrees in this case!
The Gemara says, “Mahu deteima, i lav de'ashme'inan.” If you hadn't told me the case of “chetzyah chatat vechetzyah olah,” I might have thought that the reason for Rabbi Meir is not “tefos lashon rishon ikar.” I would have thought that maybe Rabbi Meir holds that both leshonot (expressions) are valid. The animal becomes half olah and half chatat, and in this case you bring it as an olah anyway, because “chatat me'orevet kerevah”: a chatat mixed with another animal can be offered, and there is no din of mitah. When do we say that a chatat must die? Specifically when it's all chatat. But I might have thought Rabbi Meir holds that when a chatat is mixed with an olah, there's no law of mitah, so you bring it.
“Va'afilu ki amar chetzyah chatat vehadar amar chetzyah olah.” Even if it's the other way around, with chatat first and then olah, I would say it can be offered, because it's not a full chatat. So if I hadn't heard this statement of “veshavin,” I would have thought that Rabbi Meir holds that you tofes both leshonot. When he says olah, chatat, since it's only partially chatat, this partial chatat is brought as an olah. The same would apply to chatat, olah: it's also partial chatat, and it is brought as an olah. “Ka mashma lan”: no, Rabbi Meir's reason is tefos lashon rishon. Therefore, in the case of olah, chatat, it's all olah; in the case of chatat, olah, it's all chatat.
Look at Rashi. “Shavin mani? Rabbi Meir.” See Rashi: “Veshavin: de'al korchach hachi mashma de'afilu Rabbi Meir de'amar bereisha tikrav, hatam tamut, veha milta peshita, deha leRabbi Meir tefos lashon rishon it leh, vekhevan de'amar chetzyah chatat bereisha kol sheken detamut, dehavei ki chamesh chata'ot.” What, if there's no—if this is a temurat chatat? That's the point. “De'oleh veyored shenit'arvu bah shtei kedushot, af al gav detarvaihu chaylei, ela kereivah, ho'il ume'aleh bah midei dachzei le'akravah.” Since there's something inside it that's ra'ui le'akravah? Chatat, no, but the olah, yes. So bring it as an olah. “Ka mashma lan”: no, tefos lashon rishon is his reason. Therefore, in the first case, you bring it as an olah because it's an olah, and in the second case it's chatat, because of tefos lashon rishon. Chatat must die, because temurat chatat must die.
What's the chiddush? If Rabbi Meir didn't hold tefos lashon rishon, what would it be? An olah? I don't know; maybe I could give you the other reason. I just gave you the other reason. Maybe he really holds tefos both expressions. Since it's half olah, half chatat, you bring it as an olah. The din of mitah is only when it's all chatat. If it's not all chatat, if it's half and half, part of it is ra'ui, so you bring it as an olah. Does that take precedence over the other? That takes precedence. And what if it's the other way as well? It doesn't matter: chatat, olah, same thing. Chatat, olah can also be brought as an olah, because part of it is an olah. So how does that work in the other case? “Ka mashma lan”: no, the statement that they agree teaches us that mitah follows tefos lashon rishon.
One more baraita: “Tanya idach, amar behemah zo chetzyah olah vechetzyah shelamim.” Explicitly, he said, “This animal over here, I want it to be half and half, half olah, half shelamim.” “Kedushah ve'einah kereivah.” So both kedushot achal, but you can't bring it. Also, “osah temurah.” If you were meimir this animal—this first case is with a regular animal, a regular animal—then it's half and half. The kedushah takes effect, but I cannot... Okay, now if I was meimir this animal onto another animal, “temuratah kayotzei bah”: it's also a hybrid. So now I have two hybrids, two olah-shelamim combinations, that are kadosh, and I can't do anything with them. You can't bring them on the mizbe'ach (altar).
The Gemara says—look at Rashi—“de'oleh veyored shenit'arvu bah shtei kedushot, af al gav detarvaihu chaylei, ela kereivah, ho'il ume'aleh bah midei dachzei le'akravah.” But we haven't got to that yet. The Gemara asks, “Man hi?” Who is the author of this opinion? Is it Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei, that you're telling me “kedushah ve'einah kereivah”? The Gemara says, “Rabbi Yosei hi.” It has to be Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Meir, lashon rishon, whatever you said first is what it is. And if it's the first expression, then it's “kedushah ukereivah.” Yes, because that's only one animal; you don't have a hybrid. There are no hybrids according to Rabbi Yosei—I mean, according to Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Yosei, both leshonot are chal. Therefore, it's both, and you can't bring a shelamim and an olah simultaneously. It must be Rabbi Yosei.
Why? He's saying half. He's saying half. Wait, so Rabbi Meir says half is like the whole. Rabbi Meir says half is the whole. So if I say half is an olah, it's an olah! Bring it as an olah. Whose opinion says half olah, half shelamim, both take effect? It has to be Rabbi Yosei, who holds that with two expressions that can't both take effect one on top of the other, he meant both. So if he says half, how does Rabbi Meir say tefos lashon rishon? It's half and half? It spreads! It spreads through the whole thing. Once you say the first expression, that's it: tefos lashon rishon, and it spreads. So there are two chiddushim: tefos lashon rishon, and half spreads through the whole thing. According to Rabbi Meir, since it's tefos lashon rishon, when the guy says, “Chetzyah olah vechetzyah shelamim,” the kedushat olah takes effect, and then it spreads through the whole animal; the shelamim does not take effect.
“Peshita dekedushah ve'einah kereivah.” If you tell me it's Rabbi Yosei and it's half and half, of course you can't bring it. Do I need a baraita to tell me you can't bring it? How are you going to bring it? It's half shelamim, half olah. Obviously, you cannot bring it, because you say it's both.
The Gemara says, no, you're right: the chiddush is not about the first animal. “Temuratah itztaricha leih.” The chiddush is the law of temurah. What did it tell me? “Temuratah kayotzei bah”: the temurah also becomes a hybrid. Yes. What is the chiddush of that? “Teima deteima nehi dehi lo karbah, temuratah tikrav.” Why would I think that? “Ka mashma lan, mai shena hi delo karbah, dehavya lah kedushah dechuyah? Temuratah nami mikoach kedushah dechuyah ka'atya.” I would say: why isn't the original animal offered? Because it has kedushah dechuyah. It's not fit; it's not an olah or a shelamim. So the temurah is the same. Why would I think the temurah could be offered? What was the hava amina, the initial thought, that the temurah could be brought? No idea. Look at Rashi.
“Temuratah, nistapka leh le'ashmi'inan dechi yotzei bah heimenah karbah, ela heicha demakdish lah ada'ata deshneihem chetzyah olah vechetzyah shelamim, mahu deteima nehi dehi lo karbah temuratah tikrav, ho'il umitchelat hekdesh (consecrated property) dechetzyah lo haytah re'uyah lekarev lo kadsheha lachatzi, vecheivan delo havya dideih lo pashtah kedushah bechulah de'ein adam makdish davar she'eino shelo.” I thought Tosafot (Tosafot commentary)—Tosafot. And what does it answer? That's what I'm saying; I haven't read it yet. “Mahu deteima?” Tosafot is going to ask, “kelomar?” Yes, Rashi, Tosafot: I need that “me'chamat zeh,” exactly! Why would I think the temurah is better than the animal it came from?
Tosafot says, “mahu deteima de'ein da'ato shetehei chetzyah olah vechetzyah shelamim.” He didn't have to say, “All of it is a temurah,” or “half a shelamim,” or “a quarter of a shelamim.” Clearly, when the guy originally said it about the first animal, he said, “Half and half.” That's what it is. Then, when he says “temurah, harei zo temurah shel zo,” I might have thought that he doesn't mean a temurah like this. The first animal is already messed up; who wants to make another animal like that? Rather, he meant, “Harei zo temurah”—either this or that. So I would have thought that the temurah is a little better: it could take on one of them. “Ka mashma lan”: when he says temurah, it's like the first one. It's like the first one; it's also messed up, half and half, and not good. Havanta? Ay ay! Hava amina!
The Gemara continues: “Amar Rabbi Yochanan, behemah shel shenei shutafin.” You have an animal belonging to two partners, “vehikdish chatzyah shelo.” One of the partners consecrated half the animal that belonged to him. “Vechazar velakach chatzyah acheret vehikdishah.” Then he bought the other half from his partner and consecrated it as well. So the status is “kedushah ve'einah kereivah.” It's kadosh, because, bottom line, he consecrated each respective half, but it can't be offered. At the time he initially made it hekdesh, he couldn't bring it on the mizbe'ach, because only half was kadosh; he could consecrate only half. At that point, when it was initially consecrated, it was called dachui, rejected. Later it became fit, but once it's dachui, you can't bring it as a korban anymore. It's kadosh, but it's not ra'ui for the mizbe'ach.
“Ve'oseh temurah,” and this animal is subject to the laws of temurah, to make another animal kadosh. “Utmuratah kayotzei bah,” which means the kedushah of the temurah is like the original animal. The Gemara says that this is also “kedushah ve'einah kereivah.” So the Gemara says you learn three chiddushim from this case: “Shema minah telat” (Learn from it three things). First, “shema minah kedushat damim nidcheh.” When the guy consecrated half of it, he did not have kedushat haguf (inherent sanctity); he did not have kedushat hamizbe'ach (sanctity of the altar), because he could consecrate only half. Initially it had, at most, kedushat damim, the kedushah of its value. And still, you see here that the law of dechiyah applies even to kedushat damim, because it was rejected. You couldn't bring it, and you couldn't even sell half of this animal; it only became ra'ui later. So it started out rejected.
Number two, you see “ba'alei chayim nidchim,” that an animal can become rejected while it's still alive. It doesn't have to be dead to become dachui. Even an animal that's alive has the law of dachui. And “shema minah dichui me'ikaro havei dichui,” which is also a chiddush. Normally, the way some of the rabbis understand dachui is that it has to be ra'ui first and then become dachui in order to be considered dachui. Here, it was never in a state of being fit. It was dachui from the inception. This view holds that dachui from the outset is also considered dachui. There was never a moment when the korban was fit. The moment he consecrated half of the animal, it was already not ra'ui. Some say that's not considered dachui. Dachui means it has to be ra'ui to be dachui. It has to be worthy, and then you knock it out. But if it's not fit from the beginning, some say you can bring it back. This opinion doesn't hold that way. It holds “dichui me'ikaro havei dichui.” Those are the three chiddushim that come out of this halachah.
Abaye says, “Amar Abaye, hakol modim,” everybody agrees, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, “heicha de'amar chetzyah olah vechetzyah ma'aser (tithe), divrei hakol kullah olah.” According to Rabbi Meir, that's not a chiddush, because Rabbi Meir always says tefos lashon rishon. If you take the first expression, he said half of it should be an olah and half should be ma'aser. As soon as he says olah, the olah goes through the whole animal, and then it's an olah. The chiddush is according to Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei says you take both statements. But in this case, how do you take both statements? You can't make something ma'aser. Ma'aser is made only when you put it in the corral, in the pen, and count it. So when the guy says half the animal should be an olah and half should be ma'aser, the ma'aser means nothing. Therefore, we disregard what he said about ma'aser, and even according to Rabbi Yosei, the animal will be brought as an olah.
The Gemara says, “Heicha de'amar chetzyah temurah vechetzyah ma'aser.” Now the guy said something that is both inapplicable. He has an animal in front of him, an original animal. He says, “I want half of the animal to be temurah”—which really you can't say about an ordinary animal; it has to be a temurah of another animal that is kadosh—and he says, “I want the other half of the animal to be ma'aser.” Which one of these two items is more shayach? Both of them are really not shayach, but if one of them had to take effect, which one would it be? The Gemara asks, “Mai?” Which is more ra'uy, basically? What are the two sides?
“Temurah karevah, sheken noheget bechol hakodashim.” Maybe I'll say the animal takes on the status of a temurah, because temurah at least applies to all korbanot: shelamim, olah. That's unlike ma'aser, which is limited to one type of animal; it's only one type of korban, a ma'aser. So maybe temurah is more general, and therefore the animal becomes a temurah.
“O dilma ma'aser karev.” Or maybe it goes as ma'aser. Why? Maybe that kedushah takes effect, because “sheken makdish lefanav ule'acharav.” What does that mean? Right, nine and eleven. With ma'aser, I'm able to make other animals ma'aser, unlike the tenth one alone. So therefore, it has more options. Unlike temurah, where I can make only this animal itself temurah; I can't make another animal temurah. Rashi—look at Rashi. “Chetzyah olah vechetzyah ma'aser,” okay, we saw that already. “Sheken mekadesh lefanav ule'acharav”: the power of hekdesh ma'aser behemah can cause, in a certain way, the animals that came out of the pen before the tenth, and the animal after the tenth, to become consecrated too. Therefore, there's more flexibility with ma'aser. Ma'aser has more options: it can apply to three animals, the one before, the one itself, and the one after. Maybe ma'aser is more prominent in this case?
The Gemara says, “Teiku” (the matter is unresolved). So you have more options with ma'aser than with temurah. Yeah, but it's that animal. Ma'aser has more options. So maybe the ma'aser—In this case, both are not really applicable, but of the two, which one is more significant? The Gemara team said “teiku,” so we don't know which one takes effect. But if he says temurah and ma'aser, something is going to take effect. The Gemara says that something takes effect. Yes, something is going to work.
Now we discuss different leshonot of temurah. Until now, we saw only the word temurah when you want to be meimir something, like “harei zo temurah zo.” So the Mishnah says: “Harei zo temurah,” or “harei zo tachat zo,” “temurat zo,” “chalifat zo,” “harei zo temurah.” These are all words of temurah: “tachat zo,” “temurat zo,” and “chalifat zo.” All those words will make a temurah when I'm doing hatfasah, designation by association. “Zo mecholelet al zo.” He has an animal over here and another animal over here. He says, “Harei zo mecholelet al zo.” That's not a temurah. “Ein zo temurah,” because that's not an expression of temurah; it's more an expression of chillul (transfer of sanctity). That's really where you want to deconsecrate this one and put the consecration on another one, and that's not temurah.
Temurah is really about keeping both of them kadosh. Chillul is usually done like pidyon, redemption, when you have a ba'al mum (blemished offering), and you want to transfer the kedushah of the ba'al mum to the money or somewhere else. It could be his kavanah, his intention, but the word itself doesn't do that. I don't care what the guy's kavanah is. The guy thinks temurah means, “Oh, this animal is going to go off.” But you have to use the right word, temurah, which actually means both of them are going to be kadosh. When you say chillul, it implies that you want to make this one chullin (non-sacred), and this one—no. So the word is not the proper word.
“Ve'im hayah hekdesh ba'al mum,” if the korban in front of him has a mum kavua (permanent blemish), “yotze lechullin.” Good, then it will be mecholelet, because that's exactly what happens to a ba'al mum. “Vetzarich la'asot damim,” and then you're going to have to compensate hekdesh. For example, let's say the animal you transferred it to was worth less than the animal you started with. The animal you started with was $1,000, became a ba'al mum, and you said, “Harei zo mecholelet al zo,” transferring it to a $500 animal. Hekdesh doesn't lose out on $500; you have to pay hekdesh the difference in value.
Okay, let's read. Stephen, Israel, do you want to read Rashi? We're on the Mishnah. “Tachat”—right, he said nothing, because you can't make chillul on an ordinary, unblemished animal. You can't make it chullin; it's kadosh. So that word accomplishes nothing unless there was a ba'al mum. “La'asot lo? Yit'aneh hahekdesh”—“yit'aneh” is from the expression ona'ah, financial loss—so that hekdesh should not lose out.
The Gemara says, “Lemeimra detachat lishna de'atposei hu?” Does our Mishnah imply that “zo tachat zo” is an expression of temurah? “Hitpis” means that you want to take the kedushah from this animal and put it on another animal. So it implies that “tachat zo” is an expression of hatfasah. The Gemara raises a contradiction: “Kodshei bedek habayit” (property dedicated to the Temple). What's kodshei bedek habayit? An animal consecrated for its money, for its value. The law is, “ve'amar chalifat zo temurah zo lo amar kelum”: you cannot make temurah on bedek habayit property; you can make temurah only on something fit for the mizbe'ach. But if he has kodshei bedek habayit and says, “Zo temurat zo,” he said nothing. If he said, “Zo chalifat zo,” he said nothing. However, if he said “tachat zo,” “mecholelet al zo,” his words take effect.
In this case, he said “tachat zo.” What does “tachat zo” imply? Chillul. With kedushat damim, you're able to take the kedushah off this thing and put it on something else. So you see “tachat zo” used in a case of kedushat damim. It's used in a case of pidyon, redemption, not in a case of hatfasah. Temurah is the inyan of hatfasah. What is hatfasah? I'm taking the kedushah from this one and transferring it as well, making kedushat haguf (inherent sanctity) somewhere else. Our Mishnah said that if you say “tachat zo,” it's temurah. Here, it implies that “tachat zo” works only with kedushat damim, which is more like chillul than hatfasah. Hatfasah means both of them are kadosh. Chillul means you're taking the kedushah off. And it says that in a case of kedushat damim, if you say “zo tachat zo,” it's chillul. So make up your mind: is “tachat zo” hatfasah, or is it chillul?
The Gemara says, “Ve'i salka da'atach lishna de'itposei,” if you're telling me this is an expression of hatfasah, then “mai shena reisha umai shena seifa?” In the first part, in the case of kedushat damim, you told me that you cannot say temurah and you cannot say chalifah. It should also say that you cannot say “tachat.” Instead, in the second part it says you can say “tachat.” So “tachat” implies chillul, whereas in our Mishnah it implies hatfasah. The Gemara says, you know what? It can be both. Amar Abaye, “tachat mashkachat lah lishna de'atposei velishna de'acholei.” It can be used both ways; it depends on the context. Where do you see it as hatfasah, meaning that I want the kedushah to move to something else? “Dichtiv,” it says by tzara'at, if a person has leprosy, “Ve'im tachteha ta'amod habaheret (white skin lesion).” What does that mean? If the baheret remains standing, “Ve'im tachteha ta'amod habaheret.” This shows that the baheret, the tzara'at, stays in its place and doesn't spread. So the word “tachat” in this case means “remain.” If it did move, what would that mean? It would mean that the tzara'at spread to the rest of the body. So you see a case where the word “tachat” is used for tzara'at spreading, moving. That would be an expression of hatfasah: the kedushah moves from this one and spreads to another one.
Now, where do you see “acholei,” making chillul? “Dichtiv, tachat hanechoshet avi zahav.” It says in the pasuk, “Instead of the copper, I will bring gold.” That's talking about replacing something with something else, not that the copper is going to turn into gold. Instead of this, I'm going to bring that. So that's an expression of chillul. “Vehilchach,” therefore, in the context of kodshei mizbe'ach, where they do temurah, the expression means hatfasah. In the context of kodshei bedek habayit, where they don't do temurah, the expression means chillul. So it depends on what he's doing. If the guy is making kedushat haguf and says “zo tachat zo,” then it's hatfasah. He's transferring the kedushah, like temurah. If it's kedushat damim, where temurah doesn't apply, and he says “zo tachat zo,” he means chillul. It all depends on the context. “Zo tachat zo” can go either way. We said in the Mishnah that it can apply, provided that you compensate the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) for the value.
Rava says something else: “Amar Rava, afilu bekodshei mizbe'ach,” even by kodshei mizbe'ach, which is kedushat haguf, you can find it as an expression of chillul, “kegon shehikdish ba'al mum.” That's true. Let's say he had something that was hekdesh and it became a ba'al mum. With a ba'al mum you can make temurah, but you can also make chillul. So, depending on what the guy's kavanah is, when he says “zo tachat zo,” I guess if he has another animal over there, he meant to make temurah; if he has money, he means pidyon. But even with kedushat haguf, the word “tachat” can go either way, depending on what the guy wants to do.
“Well, ba'al mum can make temurah.” Correct. The chiddush is that you can even use the word “tachat.” Even by kedushat mizbe'ach that became ba'al mum, “tachat” can go either way.
Rav Ashi says, “Amar Rav Ashi, afilu beva'al mum nami, mashkachat lah lishna de'acholei umashkachat lishna de'atposei. U'talya.” How? “Yado al kodesh, chol havei.” If his hand is on the kodesh and he says, “Zo tachat zo,” then the status is already chol. It becomes chullin, because that sounds like he wants to take the kedushah off this one. “Zo tachat zo” means he wants to take the kedushah off the blemished one and put it on the other one.
“Yado achol”—but if he puts his hand on the chol one and says, “Zo tachat zo,” then it becomes kodesh. Both of them: that's like hatfasah. It all depends on where his hand is. Look at Rashi. “Yado achol.” Or, actually, the one before that: “Yado al kodesh, chol havei. Heniach yado akodesh ve'amar zo tachat zo, idach dechullin, vadai lechullin mitkaven vechol hu. Yado achol ve'amar zo tachat zo, atposei hu, dekodesh ba'al mum oseh temurah.” That's right: the chiddush is that a ba'al mum can make temurah. Obviously, if he's putting his hand on the chol, that's what he wants: he wants the kedushah of this one to go onto this one. Therefore, this one remains a ba'al mum, and this one now becomes kodesh as well. “De'i hava ba'ei hai le'achulei, hava manach yedeih ahai dekodesh.” If he wanted to take the kedushah off, he would have put his hand on the kodesh. So, in context, depending on where he puts his hand, it's either chillul, which would take the kedushah off the ba'al mum entirely, or hatfasah, which would transfer more kedushah to the other animal.
Baruch Adonai le'olam amen ve'amen.