Temurah 2B

ויליף סוף הקדש מתחילת הקדש, מה תחילת הקדש יורש מימר, אף סוף הקדש יורש סומך.

And he derives the halakhot of the end of a consecrated animal from the initial consecration of the animal, as follows: Just as with regard to the initial state of consecration of the animal, an inheritor can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the end of the consecrated animal, an inheritor places his hands on its head.

רבי יהודה, האי ״ואם המר ימיר״ מאי עביד ליה? לרבות את האשה. וכדתניא: לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא לשון זכר, שנאמר: ״לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אתו״, אשה מנין? תלמוד לומר: ״ואם המר ימיר״ לרבות את האשה.

The Talmud asks: According to R' Yehuda, who holds that an inheritor is not able to effect substitution, what does he do with this repetitive language in the verse: “And if he should at all substitute”? How does he interpret it? The Talmud answers: It serves to include a woman as able to effect substitution and to incur the penalty of 40 lashes for doing so. And this is as it is taught in a baraita: Since the verses concerning the entire matter of substitution speak only in the masculine, as it is stated: “He should not exchange it, nor substitute it” (Leviticus 27:10), from where is it derived that a woman is included? The verse states: “And if he should at all substitute,” to include a woman.

ולרבי מאיר, אשה מנא ליה? נפקא ליה מ״ואם״. ורבי יהודה, ״ואם״ לא דריש.

The Talmud asks: And according to R' Meir, who derives a different halakha from that verse, from where does he derive that a woman is included? The Talmud answers: He derives it from the addition of the conjunction “and” in the verse: “And if he should at all substitute.” And R' Yehuda does not interpret the term “and if” as having any special significance.