Temurah 5:5-6
משנה תמורה ה:ה-ו
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Temurah | Chapter: 5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 5:5
משנה ה:ה
Hebrew:
הֲרֵי זוֹ תַחַת זוֹ, תְּמוּרַת זוֹ, חֲלוּפַת זוֹ, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרָה. זוֹ מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ, אֵינוֹ תְמוּרָה. וְאִם הָיָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּעַל מוּם, יוֹצֵא לְחֻלִּין וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים:
English:
This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of that consecrated animal, or if he said: It is the substitute of that consecrated animal, or if one said: It is the exchange for that consecrated animal, that non-sacred animal is a substitute. If he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, that non-sacred animal is not a substitute. And if the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized and assumes non-sacred status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna clarifies which verbal formulas create temurah and which do not. Three expressions are effective: “in place of” (tachat), “substitute of” (temurat), and “exchange for” (chalufat). All three describe the non-sacred animal taking on the sanctity of the consecrated one.
However, the phrase “this is desacralized onto that” (mechulelet) does NOT create temurah. Why? Because this language implies removing sanctity from the original animal - which is impossible for an unblemished consecrated animal. The Torah states that both the original and the substitute become sacred; you cannot transfer sanctity away from the first animal.
The mishna then addresses an important exception: blemished consecrated animals CAN be desacralized through pidyon (redemption). If someone uses “mechulelet” language for a blemished hekdesh, it functions as redemption, not temurah. The original animal loses its sanctity (becomes chullin), and the person must make up any difference in value. This is the normal redemption process - the sanctity transfers to the money/replacement, and the blemished animal can be used for ordinary purposes.
Key Terms:
- תַחַת (tachat) = “In place of” - effective temurah language
- תְּמוּרָה (temurah) = “Substitute” - effective language; also the name of the institution
- חֲלוּפָה (chalufa) = “Exchange” - effective temurah language
- מְחֻלֶּלֶת (mechulelet) = “Desacralized” - does not create temurah for unblemished animals
- בַּעַל מוּם (ba’al mum) = Blemished animal - can be redeemed, unlike unblemished hekdesh
- לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּמִים (la’asot damim) = “To make up the value” - pay the difference if needed
Mishna 5:6
משנה ה:ו
Hebrew:
הֲרֵי זוֹ תַחַת חַטָּאת, וְתַחַת עוֹלָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. תַּחַת חַטָּאת זוֹ, וְתַחַת עוֹלָה זוֹ, תַּחַת חַטָּאת וְתַחַת עוֹלָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת, הָיָה לוֹ, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אִם אָמַר עַל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְעַל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָה, יִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם עוֹלָה:
English:
If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of a burnt offering, or: It is in place of a sin offering, he has said nothing, as he did not say that it was in place of a specific offering. If he said: It is in place of this sin offering, or: It is in place of this burnt offering, or if he said: It is in place of a sin offering that I have in the house, or: It is in place of a burnt offering that I have in the house, and he had that offering in his house, his statement stands, i.e., is effective. If he said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These animals are hereby designated as a burnt offering, he has said nothing. If he said: These animals are hereby designated for a burnt offering, the animals should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering purchased with the money received from their sale.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna establishes two important principles about the precision required in consecration language.
First principle: Temurah requires specificity. Saying “in place of a burnt offering” (generic) is ineffective - you must specify WHICH burnt offering. The temurah process involves transferring sanctity from a specific animal, not from an abstract category. “In place of THIS burnt offering” or “the offering in my house” (when one exists) works because it identifies a specific source of sanctity.
Second principle: Animal suitability matters for direct consecration. If someone tries to consecrate a non-kosher animal (like a donkey) or a blemished animal directly as “a burnt offering,” nothing happens - these animals cannot become offerings. The statement is legally null.
However, if the language is “FOR a burnt offering” (le-olah) rather than “IS a burnt offering” (olah), the intent is different. The person means to use these animals’ value for purchasing an offering, not to make the animals themselves into offerings. This is valid: the animals are sold, and the proceeds buy an actual kosher, unblemished animal for the olah.
This distinction between “is” and “for” appears throughout sacrificial law and reflects careful attention to the speaker’s likely intent.
Key Terms:
- לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם (lo amar klum) = “He has said nothing” - the statement is legally void
- דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין (devarav kayamin) = “His statement stands” - the declaration is effective
- בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה (behema teme’ah) = Non-kosher animal (e.g., donkey, pig) - cannot be sacrificed
- הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה (harei elu olah) = “These are a burnt offering” - direct consecration (ineffective for unfit animals)
- הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָה (harei elu le-olah) = “These are FOR a burnt offering” - consecrating the value (effective)