replacement

One whose dead [relative] lies before him is exempt from the recital of the Shema and from the tefillah and from tefillin. The bearers of the bier and their replacements, and their replacements’ replacement, both those in front of the bier and those behind the bier those needed to carry the bier, are exempt; but those not needed to carry the bier are obligated. Both, however, are exempt from [saying] the tefillah.

If a pesah became mixed up with other sacrifices, they all graze until they become unfit [through a blemish], then they are sold, and then he must bring [a replacement] for the price of the best of this type, and bring for the price of the best of this type and he loses the remainder from his own pocket. If it became mixed up with first-borns: Rabbi Shimon says: if [the pesah belonged to] a company of priests, they eat [all of the animals that night].

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

When Rebbi Simon bar Zevid died, Rebbi Illai ascended and eulogized him: Four things are used in the world and if they are lost, they have replacement, (Job 28:1,2) “But silver has a source, and a place is where gold is refined; iron is taken from dust, and stone is smelted into copper.” Those, if they are lost, have replacement. But a scholar who died, who can bring us his replacement, who can bring us his substitute? (Job 28:12,21) “Wisdom, where can it be found, where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living!” Rebbi Levi said: If the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found something, as it is written (Gen. 42:28) “they lost their spirit”, we, who lost Rebbi Simon bar Zevid, so much more!

When Rebbi Simon bar Zevid died, Rebbi Illai ascended and eulogized him: Four things are used in the world and if they are lost, they have replacement, (Job 28:1,2) “But silver has a source, and a place is where gold is refined; iron is taken from dust, and stone is smelted into copper.” Those, if they are lost, have replacement. But a scholar who died, who can bring us his replacement, who can bring us his substitute? (Job 28:12,21) “Wisdom, where can it be found, where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living!” Rebbi Levi said: If the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found something, as it is written (Gen. 42:28) “they lost their spirit”, we, who lost Rebbi Simon bar Zevid, so much more!

When Rebbi Simon bar Zevid died, Rebbi Illai ascended and eulogized him: Four things are used in the world and if they are lost, they have replacement, (Job 28:1,2) “But silver has a source, and a place is where gold is refined; iron is taken from dust, and stone is smelted into copper.” Those, if they are lost, have replacement. But a scholar who died, who can bring us his replacement, who can bring us his substitute? (Job 28:12,21) “Wisdom, where can it be found, where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living!” Rebbi Levi said: If the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found something, as it is written (Gen. 42:28) “they lost their spirit”, we, who lost Rebbi Simon bar Zevid, so much more!

Batitay was paralized at ophanim. They went and asked Rebbi Abun. Rebbi Abun said to them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: His replacement should start at the place where he interrupted. They said to him: But did we not state: “He starts from the start of the benediction where the other person made the error?” He said to them: Since you answered Qedušah, it is as if you started a new benediction.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Huna: The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Huna: The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay.

MISHNAH: A woman may go out with hair threads, whether her own or another woman’s or an animal’s, with a frontlet with a head-dress hanging down the cheeks if they are sewn; with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard with cotton wool in her ear, or cotton wool in her shoes, or cotton wool which she prepared for her period. With pepper or a grain of salt or any other thing she may put into her mouth on condition that she not start on the Sabbath, and if it fell out she may not return it. A replacement tooth and a gilt tooth Rebbi permits but the Sages prohibit.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard the reason from Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? Rebbi Yose said, it is understandable that with a golden tooth which was expensive she should not go out, for if she lost it she would put it back. But what can you say about a replacement tooth? Still she would be embarrassed to tell the carpenter, make me another one. If she lost it she would put it back.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Incense which was extinguished becomes defective even in carats; for consumption is written only for the external altar. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement. Immediately? The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, first it needs to be cooled. Does the oil have to be replaced? The word of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac implies that oil has to be replaced. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, now on the winter solstice half a log for each light, on the summer solstice half a log for each light? Rebbi Yose said, from this you cannot conclude anything, as we have stated there, “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks.

“And an urn was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood. What is “of boxwood”? Πύξινον. Rebbi Samuel, Rav’s brother, asked: If they were lost, must the replacement be made from gold? It shall come following “one increases in holiness but does not decrease.”

“Since no public purification sacrifice is let to die. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die.” It is difficult for Rebbi Jehudah: does one draw lots originally to die? Rebbi Abun said, do we not find this following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, they shall die? Rebbi Mana said, what you ask about Rebbi Jehudah you should ask about the Mishnah, as we have stated there, “the calf of a purification offering, and the replacement of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owners died, shall die.” Would a person replace originally to die?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, does the Mishnah contradict Rebbi Dosa? For “Rebbi Dosa said, in the morning a person has to say, everything which the poor will collect today between the sheaves is ownerless property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, because we are not responsible for cheaters.” There you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, but here you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is abandonment. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he declares ownerless by his own will, here he declares ownerless against his own will. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is correct. You have to know that this is so since already his replacement is in his hand.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

HALAKHAH: “From encumbered property, how is that?” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody disputes a court document, he is not trustworthy. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Is that not the Mishnah? “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah”! Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Babylonian, after I removed the clay from the pearl, you say to me: Is that not the Mishnah? Rav said, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she produces she collects. He changed his mind and said, she collects even at a place where one writes a ketubah; let anyone powerful object to this! Rebbi Yose objected: Was it not stated: She might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, and collect a second time? If those died. Are there not witnesses? Bring them! They went overseas. Is there not an agreement? Is there no registrar of agreements? There is a registrar of agreements; as you say, if a document is lost, one writes a replacement. This is what one says, if the ketubah was lost, one writes a new one. Rebbi Abba objected: Was it not stated, she might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, wait until he dies, and collect a second time? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said to him: Would she not have to prove that she lived with him until he died?

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses] in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom.

When Rebbi Simeon ben Zevid died, Rebbi Illai rose and eulogized him. But silver has a source, etc. Iron is taken from dust, etc. Those, if they are lost, have replacement. But a scholar who died, who can bring us one similar to him? Wisdom, where can it be found, etc. It is hidden from the eyes of all living, etc. Rebbi Levi said, if the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found a find, as it is written, they lost their spirit, we, who lost Rebbi Simeon bar Zevid, so much more!

It was taught there: What constitutes a vow? When one says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah.” And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: “Behold, this shall be an olah.” What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. Whence is this rule derived? —

It was taught there: What constitutes a vow? When one says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah.” And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: “Behold, this shall be an olah.” What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. Whence is this rule derived? —

It was taught there: What constitutes a vow? When one says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah.” And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: “Behold, this shall be an olah.” What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. Whence is this rule derived? —