Temurah 5:3-4
משנה תמורה ה:ג-ד
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Temurah | Chapter: 5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 5:3
משנה ה:ג
Hebrew:
הָאוֹמֵר, וְלָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה וְהִיא שְׁלָמִים, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. הִיא שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ וְלַד שְׁלָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִם לְכֵן נִתְכַּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁלָמִים, נִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר וְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ וְלַד שְׁלָמִים:
English:
One who says: The offspring of this non-sacred animal is a burnt offering and the animal itself is a peace offering, his statement stands, i.e., is effective. If he says: The animal itself is a peace offering and its offspring is a burnt offering, then since consecration of the mother preceded consecration of the offspring, it is the offspring of a peace offering, whose halakhic status is that of a peace offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, to designate the offspring as a burnt offering when he designated the mother as a peace offering, then since it is impossible to call it by two designations simultaneously, his statement stands, and the mother is a peace offering and the offspring a burnt offering. And if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby a peace offering, that he reconsidered and said: Its offspring is a burnt offering, that offspring is a peace offering, as before he reconsidered, the offspring had already assumed the status of the offspring of a peace offering.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna explores a subtle timing question in consecration: when someone makes a compound statement about a mother animal and its offspring, does the order of words matter?
The first case is straightforward: “Its offspring is an olah, and the mother is a shelamim.” Since the offspring was mentioned first, it becomes an olah before the mother is consecrated as a shelamim. The statement stands as intended.
The second case is more complex: “The mother is a shelamim, and its offspring is an olah.” Rabbi Meir rules strictly by temporal order - the moment you say “the mother is a shelamim,” the unborn offspring automatically becomes “offspring of a shelamim” (which has shelamim status). The subsequent words about the offspring being an olah come too late; the offspring’s status was already determined.
Rabbi Yosei introduces a crucial distinction based on intent (kavanah). If the speaker intended from the start to give the offspring a different status than the mother, we accommodate this even though physically he had to say one thing before the other - it’s impossible to pronounce two things simultaneously. But if he genuinely changed his mind mid-sentence (reconsidered after saying “shelamim”), then Rabbi Yosei agrees with Rabbi Meir that the offspring follows the mother.
Key Terms:
- וְלָדָהּ (veladah) = Its offspring/fetus
- דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים (devarav kayamim) = “His statement stands” - the declaration is effective
- נִמְלַךְ (nimlakh) = Reconsidered, changed his mind
- אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת = “It’s impossible to call two designations simultaneously” - a practical limitation of speech
Mishna 5:4
משנה ה:ד
Hebrew:
הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּתְמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִם לְכֵן נִתְכַּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, נִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר, תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה:
English:
If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and the other a peace offering, and he said with regard to a third, non-sacred animal: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, when he said that the animal is the substitute of the burnt offering, to state that the animal is also the substitute of the peace offering, then since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously, i.e., one must first say one designation and then the other, his statement stands, and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. And if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, that he reconsidered and said: The substitute of the peace offering, that entire animal is the substitute of the burnt offering.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna applies the same debate to the laws of temurah (substitution) itself - the very topic of our tractate. Someone has two consecrated animals (an olah and a shelamim) and attempts to make a third, non-sacred animal into a substitute for both simultaneously.
Rabbi Meir rules that only the first designation takes effect. The moment you say “substitute of the olah,” the animal becomes a temurah of the olah and cannot subsequently become anything else. The words “substitute of the shelamim” are ineffective - the animal is already fully consecrated.
Rabbi Yosei again distinguishes based on intent. If the person intended from the outset to create a “hybrid” substitute for both offerings, we accommodate the physical limitation of sequential speech. The result is remarkable: the animal has split sanctity - half olah, half shelamim. This creates practical complications for how to sacrifice it, but the dual intent is honored.
However, if the person genuinely changed his mind after saying “substitute of the olah,” then Rabbi Yosei agrees the entire animal is a temurah of the olah. The distinction between original intent and mid-sentence reconsideration is the key factor.
Key Terms:
- תְמוּרָה (temurah) = Substitute - an animal that received sanctity through attempted exchange with a consecrated animal
- תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה (temurat olah) = Substitute of a burnt offering - takes on olah sanctity
- תְמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים (temurat shelamim) = Substitute of a peace offering - takes on shelamim sanctity
- נִתְכַּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה (nitkaven mitechilah) = “Intended from the outset” - original intent at moment of speech