Study Temurah folio 5B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ולרבא, האי ״הוא״ למעוטי בכור, דתניא: בבכור נאמר ״לא תפדה״ ונמכר הוא, במעשר נאמר ״לא יגאל״ ואינו נמכר, לא חי ולא שחוט, לא תם ולא בעל מום.
And according to the opinion of Rava, this term: “Is most holy,” serves to exclude the case of a firstborn offering from the prohibition of sale. As it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you should not redeem; they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). But if it develops a blemish it may still be sold. By contrast, it is stated with regard to the animal tithe offering: “It should not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), and the animal tithe may not be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished.
והרי תמורה, דאמר רחמנא: ״לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו״, ותנא: לא שאדם רשאי להמיר, אלא שאם המיר — מומר, וסופג את הארבעים. אלמא מהני, תיובתא דרבא!
The Talmud objects: But isn’t there the case of substitution, with regard to which God states: “He should not exchange it, nor substitute it” (Leviticus 27:10), and it is taught in the Mishnah (2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect, and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the 40 lashes. Apparently, his action is effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.
אמר לך: שאני התם, דאמר קרא ״והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קדש״.
The Talmud explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as that same verse states: “And if he should at all substitute animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted should be holy,” which teaches that his action is effective in this context specifically.