In what ways 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 sanctified for the altar or only for items santified for the temple or for both?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Temurah 32
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָן מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, וּמַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי, וּמַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן, וְאִם מֵתוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אִם מֵתוּ — יִפָּדוּ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״ — כׇּל חֵרֶם דְּקֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הָוֵי, הָהוּא לַה׳ לֶיהֱוֵי.
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: “Notwithstanding, 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 Lord” (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.
מֵיתִיבִי: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ בֵּין לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
הָא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיס לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא!
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.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: כִּי שַׁיְּירַהּ — אַהָדָא שַׁיְּירַהּ, דְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֲבָל לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
וְלִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי הָנָךְ! תַּנָּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — קָתָנֵי, דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — לָא קָתָנֵי.
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.
תְּנַן: ״מַקְדִּישׁ אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״, מַאי לַָאו ״הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״ — לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וּ״מַחְרִימִין״ — לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֵן?
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.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״(חֶרְמֵי) [חֵרֶם]״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.
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.
וְהָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי, דְּתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי — קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַחְרִימִין אוֹתָם — חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים! וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
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, isn’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.
וְהָא רַב הוּנָא קְרָא קָאָמַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: אָמַר קְרָא ״חֵרֶם כׇּל חֵרֶם״.
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: “Notwithstanding, 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 Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that “every dedicated item” is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.
וּמִי אָמַר עוּלָּא הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: הַמַּתְפִּיס עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב
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 didn’t Ulla say that one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance has only the delay of
גִּזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד!
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.
לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וְקָרָא לִמְעִילָה [הוּא] דַּאֲתָא.
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.
לִמְעִילָה לְמָה לֵיהּ קְרָא? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!
The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse “every dedicated item” 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: “Is most holy unto the Lord,” and the halakhot of misuse apply to all sanctified items.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין מְעִילָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלָה בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִמְעוֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״, הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳. אֲבָל חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לָא נָפְקָא אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבִּי.
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 “is most holy,” 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: “If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lord” (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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה.
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: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar…all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). The word “all” 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.
לְמָה לִי קְרָא? ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה. חֲרָמִים נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה.
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: Why, then, do I need a verse to include these offerings? After all, an expression of “most holy,” is written with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering. Rather, it must be that even though “most holy” 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 “most holy” is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse.
גּוּפָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב גִּיזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד. מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אָסוּר לְשׁוֹחֳטָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה!
§ 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.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָהּ — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹעֲלִין שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת, וְאִי מִדְּרַבָּנַן — אַמַּאי שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּרְאוּיָה לִמְעוֹל בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת.
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.
וְאִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ כּוּ׳.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “And 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 be” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְרַבָּנַן, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
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.
וְזֶה וָזֶה, מוֹדֶה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ לֹא הָיָה בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
The Gemara adds: And both this one and that one, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
תְּנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְפָרוֹשֵׁי ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״.
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 Yoḥanan, 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.
אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי? לֵימָא ״אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ״!
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.
אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא הֲוָה יָדַע מַאי דְּאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ — מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “And 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 it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִם בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּפָדָה בְעֶרְכֶּךָ״ — הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אָמוּר,
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: “And if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is thereby stated as subject to redemption.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 55: All Sacrifices Are Holy, But Not to the Same Degree
November 08, 2025 | י״ז בחשון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
Temurah 32
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָן מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, וּמַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי, וּמַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן, וְאִם מֵתוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אִם מֵתוּ — יִפָּדוּ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״ — כׇּל חֵרֶם דְּקֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הָוֵי, הָהוּא לַה׳ לֶיהֱוֵי.
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: “Notwithstanding, 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 Lord” (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.
מֵיתִיבִי: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ בֵּין לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
הָא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיס לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא!
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.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: כִּי שַׁיְּירַהּ — אַהָדָא שַׁיְּירַהּ, דְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֲבָל לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.
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.
וְלִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי הָנָךְ! תַּנָּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — קָתָנֵי, דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — לָא קָתָנֵי.
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.
תְּנַן: ״מַקְדִּישׁ אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״, מַאי לַָאו ״הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״ — לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וּ״מַחְרִימִין״ — לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֵן?
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.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״(חֶרְמֵי) [חֵרֶם]״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.
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.
וְהָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי, דְּתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי — קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַחְרִימִין אוֹתָם — חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים! וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
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, isn’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.
וְהָא רַב הוּנָא קְרָא קָאָמַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: אָמַר קְרָא ״חֵרֶם כׇּל חֵרֶם״.
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: “Notwithstanding, 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 Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that “every dedicated item” is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.
וּמִי אָמַר עוּלָּא הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: הַמַּתְפִּיס עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב
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 didn’t Ulla say that one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance has only the delay of
גִּזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד!
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.
לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וְקָרָא לִמְעִילָה [הוּא] דַּאֲתָא.
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.
לִמְעִילָה לְמָה לֵיהּ קְרָא? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!
The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse “every dedicated item” 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: “Is most holy unto the Lord,” and the halakhot of misuse apply to all sanctified items.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין מְעִילָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלָה בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִמְעוֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״, הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳. אֲבָל חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לָא נָפְקָא אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבִּי.
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 “is most holy,” 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: “If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lord” (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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה.
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: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar…all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). The word “all” 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.
לְמָה לִי קְרָא? ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה. חֲרָמִים נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה.
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: Why, then, do I need a verse to include these offerings? After all, an expression of “most holy,” is written with regard to a sin offering and guilt offering. Rather, it must be that even though “most holy” 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 “most holy” is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in the halakhot of misuse.
גּוּפָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב גִּיזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד. מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אָסוּר לְשׁוֹחֳטָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה!
§ 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.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָהּ — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹעֲלִין שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת, וְאִי מִדְּרַבָּנַן — אַמַּאי שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּרְאוּיָה לִמְעוֹל בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת.
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.
וְאִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ כּוּ׳.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “And 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 be” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְרַבָּנַן, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
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.
וְזֶה וָזֶה, מוֹדֶה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ לֹא הָיָה בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
The Gemara adds: And both this one and that one, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
תְּנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְפָרוֹשֵׁי ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״.
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 Yoḥanan, 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.
אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי? לֵימָא ״אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ״!
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.
אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא הֲוָה יָדַע מַאי דְּאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ — מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “And 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 it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִם בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּפָדָה בְעֶרְכֶּךָ״ — הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אָמוּר,
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: “And if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is thereby stated as subject to redemption.
Follow
