Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 20, 2019 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

Temurah 32

In what waysย are items sanctified for the altar and for upkeep of the temple similar? What happens if one sanctifies an item for the altar and then for temple upkeep or as cherem? Is it valid? What is the amount that one has to pay? Is there a difference if it was a cherem for God (temple) or to the priests? Is the law regarding redemption that the animal has to be stood up to be evaluated (meaning it can’t be redeemed if the animal is dead and can’t stand) relevant only for items sanctifiedย for the altar or only for items santified for the temple or for both?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื•ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืงื‘ืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


MISHNA: While the previous mishna enumerated differences between consecration for the altar and consecration for Temple maintenance, this mishna enumerates halakhot that apply to both. With regard to both animals consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, one may not alter their designation from one form of sanctity to another form of sanctity. But one may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance. And one may dedicate them for the purpose of giving their value to the priests. And if animals consecrated either for the altar or for Temple maintenance died, they must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Although that is the halakha with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ื“ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™


GEMARA: Rav Huna says: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if one associated such objects of his vow with dedications for the priests, i.e., he vowed to give their value as a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. What is the reason? The verse states: โ€œNotwithstanding, no devoted item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:28). The verse is interpreted to mean that any dedicated item that is most holy, i.e., that was consecrated for the altar and then dedicated to the priests, that item should be for the Lord, and the priests are not entitled to it.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Huna from a baraita: With regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar, whose sanctity is more stringent than consecration for Temple maintenance, or with a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. The reason is that one cannot remove the sanctity of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and he has no ownership of value in it. As for the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to choose the priest that will receive the offering, this is not relevant to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore it cannot be suggested that his act of consecration was with regard to the benefit of discretion.


ื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


Similarly, in the case of a dedication to priests that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar or with a consecration for Temple maintenance, he has done nothing. One does not have any rights to an item dedicated to the priests, not even the benefit of discretion, as the dedicated item must be given to the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple at the time of its dedication.


ื”ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืก ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื


The Gemara explains the objection: Since the baraita teaches only that one may not associate with another sanctity items consecrated for Temple maintenance or dedications to priests, it may be inferred with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with dedications to priests, that what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect. If so, this baraita is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Huna.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ืื”ื“ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


The Gemara responds: Rav Huna could have said to you that one cannot draw such an inference from the baraita, as it is possible that the tanna chose to discuss only those two instances while omitting the case of an animal consecrated for the altar. And as for the fact that the tanna omitted this latter case, he omitted it due to this reason, that the halakha differs depending on the case: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, what he did is done, and he must pay the Temple treasury a consecration of value, but if he associated it with a dedication to priests, he has done nothing.


ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื ืš ืชื ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืงืชื ื™


The Gemara objects: But if so, let the tanna teach explicitly that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to the priests has done nothing, alongside these other cases of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and dedications to priests. The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches instances where there are two types of consecration with which the item cannot be associated, e.g., an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which cannot be associated with either a consecration for the altar or a dedication to the priests. By contrast, the tanna does not teach a case where there are not two instances with which the item cannot be associated, i.e., an animal consecrated for the altar. Although an animal consecrated for the altar cannot be associated with a dedication to the priests, it can be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


ืชื ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื•ืชืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ืŸ


The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav Huna from that which we learned in the mishna: One may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and one can dedicate them. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that when the mishna is referring to a consecration of their value, this is a consecration for Temple maintenance, and when it states that one dedicates them, this is referring to dedications to a priest? Evidently, one can associate an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to priests.


ืœื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืคื™ืง ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืคื™ืง ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื—ืจืžื™ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช


The Gemara responds: No, this is not the meaning of the mishna. Rather, both this and that are referring to consecrations for Temple maintenance. And the mishna is teaching that there is no difference whether he expresses a term of consecration, i.e., if he states: This animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, in which case the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there is no difference if he expresses a term of dedication, i.e., he states: This animal is dedicated for Temple maintenance, as in this case too, the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance.


ื•ื”ื ืœื ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is not how it is taught in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: One can consecrate animals consecrated for the altar by a consecration of its value, that is, a consecration for Temple maintenance, and one can dedicate them by a dedication to priests. And furthermore, isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one subsequently consecrated their value as dedications to the priests, that what he did is done? The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.


ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืงืจื ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื—ืจื ื›ืœ ื—ืจื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Huna says a verse as the source for his opinion. Since his opinion is refuted, how should the verse be interpreted? Ulla said: That verse is not interpreted in the manner of Rav Huna. The verse states: โ€œNotwithstanding, no dedicated item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that โ€œevery dedicated itemโ€ is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.


ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื™ื›ื•ื‘


Since Ulla holds that animals consecrated for the altar may be associated with a dedication to priests, evidently he also holds that they may be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, as even Rav Huna agrees they may be associated with such a consecration. The Gemara therefore asks: And did Ulla actually say this? But didnโ€™t Ulla say that one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance has only the delay of


ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื‘ื“


the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. In other words, the owner of an offering must stand over the animal when it is sacrificed, and in the case of a burnt offering that was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, the Temple treasurer is the owner. Evidently, Ulla maintains that the offering does not require an appraisal for a consecration of its value before it may be sacrificed, despite the fact that it was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ืืชื


The Gemara responds: Actually, this halakha, that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a consecration for Temple maintenance must give the value of the animal for Temple maintenance, was instituted by the Sages; by Torah law, there is only the delay attributed to the treasurers. This is also the opinion of Ulla. And as for the verse that Ulla cites as a source for the halakha that an animal consecrated for the altar can be associated with dedications to priests (Leviticus 27:28), it is mere support for this rabbinic law. The verse actually comes to teach that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests.


ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื”


The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse โ€œevery dedicated itemโ€ serves to teach only that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests, why does one need this verse at all? After all, an expression of most holy is written in the verse, as it states: โ€œIs most holy unto the Lord,โ€ and the halakhot of misuse apply to all sanctified items.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืชืžืขืœ ืžืขืœ ื•ื—ื˜ืื” ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืžืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืณ ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ืœื ื ืคืงื ืืœื ืžื“ืจื‘ื™


The Gemara rejects this claim: And according to your reasoning, that liability for misuse in the case of dedications to priests is derived from the term โ€œis most holy,โ€ then consider that which Rabbi Yannai said: The halakhot of misuse are written explicitly in the Torah only in the case of one who misuses a burnt offering, as it is stated with regard to the guilt offering brought for misuse: โ€œIf anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:15). The verse indicates only that one is liable for misuse of burnt offerings, which are exclusively for the Lord. But the fact that the halakhot of misuse apply to a sin offering or a guilt offering, from which the priests or owners partake, is derived only from that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœืžืขื™ืœื”


This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altarโ€ฆall the fat is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Leviticus 3:16). The word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakhot of misuse; all the more so is it the case that offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, are included.


ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื ืœืจื‘ื•ื™ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืขื™ืœื”


The Gemara concludes its reasoning: Why, then, do I need a verse to include these offerings? After all, an expression of โ€œmost holy,โ€ is written with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering. Rather, it must be that even though โ€œmost holyโ€ is written with regard to them, nevertheless, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse. With regard to dedications as well, even though โ€œmost holyโ€ is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse.


ื’ื•ืคื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื™ื›ื•ื‘ ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืกื•ืจ ืœืฉื•ื—ื˜ื” ืขื“ ืฉืชืคื“ื”


ยง The Gemara earlier cited a statement of Ulla with regard to one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance. The Gemara discusses the matter itself: One who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance has only the delay attributed to the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance, it is prohibited to slaughter it until it is redeemed.


ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื ืขื‘ืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื” ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™


The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law; by Torah law, a burnt offering cannot be consecrated by means of a consecration of value, and only the presence of the treasurers is required for it to be sacrificed. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita teaches: If he transgressed and slaughtered it before redeeming it what he did is done and he is not required to redeem it. But if the burnt offering must be redeemed by Torah law, how can the baraita state that what he did is done? Evidently, the burnt offering is redeemed by rabbinic law.


ืืœื ืžืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื‘ื” ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช


The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say? Will you say that the baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law? If so, say the last clause of the baraita: And anyone who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuses consecrated property on two counts of misuse, one for deriving benefit from an animal consecrated for the altar and one for deriving benefit from an item consecrated for Temple maintenance. But if the burnt offering is consecrated with a consecration of value by rabbinic law, why does one who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuse consecrated property on two counts of misuse? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: And if the consecration of value of this burnt offering was by Torah law, it is fit to be liable for misuse on two counts of misuse.


ื•ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืงื‘ืจื• ื›ื•ืณ


ยง The mishna cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis with regard to animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Rabbis hold that if they died and were not redeemed, they cannot be redeemed and they must be buried, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that this is the halakha only with regard to animals consecrated for the altar; animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: According to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as it states in the Torah with regard to the redemption of consecrated animals: โ€œAnd if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it beโ€ (Leviticus 27:11โ€“12). Any consecrated animal that cannot be stood before the priest, e.g., one that died, is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried.


ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


And Reish Lakish says: According to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as that verse is discussing animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. Accordingly, if an animal consecrated for Temple maintenance died and was not redeemed, it must be buried without redemption. But animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as the verse is not referring to such animals. Accordingly, if they died they are redeemed.


ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


The Gemara adds: And both this one and that one, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish, agree that according to Rabbi Shimon, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died they are redeemed; and animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and if they died they are not redeemed. And according to both Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish, everyone agrees, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, that if one consecrated for the altar an animal that was blemished from the outset, the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and it may be redeemed if it died.


ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื• ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died can be redeemed. The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that according to the Rabbis, both this and that, i.e., animals consecrated for the altar and for Temple maintenance, were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and if they died they are not redeemed; this is why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to explain that specifically in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, they can be redeemed. This serves to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, not those consecrated for the altar.


ืืœื ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืœืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืœื™ืžื ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


But according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the Rabbis hold that only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may not be redeemed if they died, why must Rabbi Shimon explain that he is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance? Let him say simply: If they died they can be redeemed, and it would be obvious that he is speaking of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, for if he were referring to animals consecrated for the altar, even the Rabbis agree that they may be redeemed.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื“ืข ืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื ืœืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you that Rabbi Shimon did not know what the first tanna said, i.e., he was unsure whether the statement of the first tanna, the Rabbis, that the animal must be buried without redemption, is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance or to animals consecrated for the altar. And therefore, this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the first tanna: If your statement is referring to animals consecrated for the altar, that they are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died without redemption, then I concede to you. By contrast, if your statement is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, then I disagree with you and rule that if they died they can be redeemed.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคื“ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ


The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: The verse states: โ€œAnd if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value itโ€ (Leviticus 27:11โ€“12). The Sages teach that the verse is speaking of blemished animals, that they can be redeemed. The verse indicates that one redeems a blemished animal by means of standing and valuation.


ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืคื“ื” ื‘ืขืจื›ืš ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืืžื•ืจ


The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of blemished animals; or perhaps it is referring only to a non-kosher animal, and it is teaching that a non-kosher animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed through standing and valuation. The baraita answers: When it says later in that passage: โ€œAnd if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is thereby stated as subject to redemption.


Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 32

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื•ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืงื‘ืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


MISHNA: While the previous mishna enumerated differences between consecration for the altar and consecration for Temple maintenance, this mishna enumerates halakhot that apply to both. With regard to both animals consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, one may not alter their designation from one form of sanctity to another form of sanctity. But one may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance. And one may dedicate them for the purpose of giving their value to the priests. And if animals consecrated either for the altar or for Temple maintenance died, they must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Although that is the halakha with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ื“ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™


GEMARA: Rav Huna says: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar, if one associated such objects of his vow with dedications for the priests, i.e., he vowed to give their value as a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. What is the reason? The verse states: โ€œNotwithstanding, no devoted item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:28). The verse is interpreted to mean that any dedicated item that is most holy, i.e., that was consecrated for the altar and then dedicated to the priests, that item should be for the Lord, and the priests are not entitled to it.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Huna from a baraita: With regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar, whose sanctity is more stringent than consecration for Temple maintenance, or with a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing. The reason is that one cannot remove the sanctity of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and he has no ownership of value in it. As for the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to choose the priest that will receive the offering, this is not relevant to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore it cannot be suggested that his act of consecration was with regard to the benefit of discretion.


ื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


Similarly, in the case of a dedication to priests that one associated with another sanctity, whether with a consecration for the altar or with a consecration for Temple maintenance, he has done nothing. One does not have any rights to an item dedicated to the priests, not even the benefit of discretion, as the dedicated item must be given to the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple at the time of its dedication.


ื”ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืก ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื


The Gemara explains the objection: Since the baraita teaches only that one may not associate with another sanctity items consecrated for Temple maintenance or dedications to priests, it may be inferred with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with dedications to priests, that what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect. If so, this baraita is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Huna.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ืื”ื“ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืคื™ืกืŸ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื


The Gemara responds: Rav Huna could have said to you that one cannot draw such an inference from the baraita, as it is possible that the tanna chose to discuss only those two instances while omitting the case of an animal consecrated for the altar. And as for the fact that the tanna omitted this latter case, he omitted it due to this reason, that the halakha differs depending on the case: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, what he did is done, and he must pay the Temple treasury a consecration of value, but if he associated it with a dedication to priests, he has done nothing.


ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื ืš ืชื ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืงืชื ื™


The Gemara objects: But if so, let the tanna teach explicitly that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to the priests has done nothing, alongside these other cases of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and dedications to priests. The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches instances where there are two types of consecration with which the item cannot be associated, e.g., an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which cannot be associated with either a consecration for the altar or a dedication to the priests. By contrast, the tanna does not teach a case where there are not two instances with which the item cannot be associated, i.e., an animal consecrated for the altar. Although an animal consecrated for the altar cannot be associated with a dedication to the priests, it can be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


ืชื ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื•ืชืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ืŸ


The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav Huna from that which we learned in the mishna: One may consecrate animals already consecrated for the altar by a consecration of their value, and one can dedicate them. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that when the mishna is referring to a consecration of their value, this is a consecration for Temple maintenance, and when it states that one dedicates them, this is referring to dedications to a priest? Evidently, one can associate an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to priests.


ืœื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืคื™ืง ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืคื™ืง ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื—ืจืžื™ ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช


The Gemara responds: No, this is not the meaning of the mishna. Rather, both this and that are referring to consecrations for Temple maintenance. And the mishna is teaching that there is no difference whether he expresses a term of consecration, i.e., if he states: This animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, in which case the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there is no difference if he expresses a term of dedication, i.e., he states: This animal is dedicated for Temple maintenance, as in this case too, the animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance.


ื•ื”ื ืœื ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืœื—ืจืžื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is not how it is taught in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: One can consecrate animals consecrated for the altar by a consecration of its value, that is, a consecration for Temple maintenance, and one can dedicate them by a dedication to priests. And furthermore, isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita with regard to animals consecrated for the altar that one subsequently consecrated their value as dedications to the priests, that what he did is done? The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.


ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืงืจื ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื—ืจื ื›ืœ ื—ืจื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Huna says a verse as the source for his opinion. Since his opinion is refuted, how should the verse be interpreted? Ulla said: That verse is not interpreted in the manner of Rav Huna. The verse states: โ€œNotwithstanding, no dedicated item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that โ€œevery dedicated itemโ€ is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.


ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื™ื›ื•ื‘


Since Ulla holds that animals consecrated for the altar may be associated with a dedication to priests, evidently he also holds that they may be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, as even Rav Huna agrees they may be associated with such a consecration. The Gemara therefore asks: And did Ulla actually say this? But didnโ€™t Ulla say that one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance has only the delay of


ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื‘ื“


the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. In other words, the owner of an offering must stand over the animal when it is sacrificed, and in the case of a burnt offering that was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, the Temple treasurer is the owner. Evidently, Ulla maintains that the offering does not require an appraisal for a consecration of its value before it may be sacrificed, despite the fact that it was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ืืชื


The Gemara responds: Actually, this halakha, that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a consecration for Temple maintenance must give the value of the animal for Temple maintenance, was instituted by the Sages; by Torah law, there is only the delay attributed to the treasurers. This is also the opinion of Ulla. And as for the verse that Ulla cites as a source for the halakha that an animal consecrated for the altar can be associated with dedications to priests (Leviticus 27:28), it is mere support for this rabbinic law. The verse actually comes to teach that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests.


ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื”


The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse โ€œevery dedicated itemโ€ serves to teach only that one is subject to the halakhot of misuse in the case of dedications to priests, why does one need this verse at all? After all, an expression of most holy is written in the verse, as it states: โ€œIs most holy unto the Lord,โ€ and the halakhot of misuse apply to all sanctified items.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืชืžืขืœ ืžืขืœ ื•ื—ื˜ืื” ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืžืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืณ ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ืœื ื ืคืงื ืืœื ืžื“ืจื‘ื™


The Gemara rejects this claim: And according to your reasoning, that liability for misuse in the case of dedications to priests is derived from the term โ€œis most holy,โ€ then consider that which Rabbi Yannai said: The halakhot of misuse are written explicitly in the Torah only in the case of one who misuses a burnt offering, as it is stated with regard to the guilt offering brought for misuse: โ€œIf anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:15). The verse indicates only that one is liable for misuse of burnt offerings, which are exclusively for the Lord. But the fact that the halakhot of misuse apply to a sin offering or a guilt offering, from which the priests or owners partake, is derived only from that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœืžืขื™ืœื”


This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altarโ€ฆall the fat is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Leviticus 3:16). The word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakhot of misuse; all the more so is it the case that offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, are included.


ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื ืœืจื‘ื•ื™ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืขื™ืœื”


The Gemara concludes its reasoning: Why, then, do I need a verse to include these offerings? After all, an expression of โ€œmost holy,โ€ is written with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering. Rather, it must be that even though โ€œmost holyโ€ is written with regard to them, nevertheless, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse. With regard to dedications as well, even though โ€œmost holyโ€ is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse.


ื’ื•ืคื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืœื ืขื™ื›ื•ื‘ ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืกื•ืจ ืœืฉื•ื—ื˜ื” ืขื“ ืฉืชืคื“ื”


ยง The Gemara earlier cited a statement of Ulla with regard to one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance. The Gemara discusses the matter itself: One who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance has only the delay attributed to the treasurers alone preventing the offering from being sacrificed. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance, it is prohibited to slaughter it until it is redeemed.


ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื ืขื‘ืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื” ืžื” ืฉืขืฉื” ืขืฉื•ื™


The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law; by Torah law, a burnt offering cannot be consecrated by means of a consecration of value, and only the presence of the treasurers is required for it to be sacrificed. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita teaches: If he transgressed and slaughtered it before redeeming it what he did is done and he is not required to redeem it. But if the burnt offering must be redeemed by Torah law, how can the baraita state that what he did is done? Evidently, the burnt offering is redeemed by rabbinic law.


ืืœื ืžืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืื™ ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื‘ื” ืฉืชื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ืช


The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say? Will you say that the baraita is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law? If so, say the last clause of the baraita: And anyone who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuses consecrated property on two counts of misuse, one for deriving benefit from an animal consecrated for the altar and one for deriving benefit from an item consecrated for Temple maintenance. But if the burnt offering is consecrated with a consecration of value by rabbinic law, why does one who derives benefit from this burnt offering misuse consecrated property on two counts of misuse? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: And if the consecration of value of this burnt offering was by Torah law, it is fit to be liable for misuse on two counts of misuse.


ื•ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืงื‘ืจื• ื›ื•ืณ


ยง The mishna cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis with regard to animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Rabbis hold that if they died and were not redeemed, they cannot be redeemed and they must be buried, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that this is the halakha only with regard to animals consecrated for the altar; animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: According to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as it states in the Torah with regard to the redemption of consecrated animals: โ€œAnd if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it beโ€ (Leviticus 27:11โ€“12). Any consecrated animal that cannot be stood before the priest, e.g., one that died, is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried.


ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


And Reish Lakish says: According to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as that verse is discussing animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. Accordingly, if an animal consecrated for Temple maintenance died and was not redeemed, it must be buried without redemption. But animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, as the verse is not referring to such animals. Accordingly, if they died they are redeemed.


ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”


The Gemara adds: And both this one and that one, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish, agree that according to Rabbi Shimon, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died they are redeemed; and animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and if they died they are not redeemed. And according to both Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish, everyone agrees, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, that if one consecrated for the altar an animal that was blemished from the outset, the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and it may be redeemed if it died.


ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื• ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืขืžื“ื” ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died can be redeemed. The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that according to the Rabbis, both this and that, i.e., animals consecrated for the altar and for Temple maintenance, were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and if they died they are not redeemed; this is why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to explain that specifically in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, they can be redeemed. This serves to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, not those consecrated for the altar.


ืืœื ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืœืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืœื™ืžื ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


But according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the Rabbis hold that only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may not be redeemed if they died, why must Rabbi Shimon explain that he is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance? Let him say simply: If they died they can be redeemed, and it would be obvious that he is speaking of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, for if he were referring to animals consecrated for the altar, even the Rabbis agree that they may be redeemed.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื“ืข ืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื ืœืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื ืžืชื• ื™ืคื“ื•


The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you that Rabbi Shimon did not know what the first tanna said, i.e., he was unsure whether the statement of the first tanna, the Rabbis, that the animal must be buried without redemption, is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance or to animals consecrated for the altar. And therefore, this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the first tanna: If your statement is referring to animals consecrated for the altar, that they are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died without redemption, then I concede to you. By contrast, if your statement is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, then I disagree with you and rule that if they died they can be redeemed.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคื“ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ


The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: The verse states: โ€œAnd if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value itโ€ (Leviticus 27:11โ€“12). The Sages teach that the verse is speaking of blemished animals, that they can be redeemed. The verse indicates that one redeems a blemished animal by means of standing and valuation.


ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืคื“ื” ื‘ืขืจื›ืš ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืืžื•ืจ


The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of blemished animals; or perhaps it is referring only to a non-kosher animal, and it is teaching that a non-kosher animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed through standing and valuation. The baraita answers: When it says later in that passage: โ€œAnd if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is thereby stated as subject to redemption.


Scroll To Top