Temurah 33

הא מה אני מקיים ואם כל בהמה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה׳ בבעלי מומין שיפדו

But if the halakha of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “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.” The verse is referring to blemished animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches that they can be redeemed.

יכול יפדו על מום עובר תלמוד לומר אשר לא יקריבו ממנה שאינה קריבה כל עיקר יצתה זו שאינה קריבה היום אלא למחר

The baraita continues: One might have thought that any blemished animal can be redeemed, even for a temporary blemish. Therefore, the verse states: “Non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering,” which indicates that only a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed at all, i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. This animal with a temporary blemish is thereby excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but it may be sacrificed tomorrow.

ואמר רחמנא עביד לה העמדה והערכה

The Gemara concludes its reasoning: And the Merciful One states that one should perform standing and valuation for a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed baraita that appears in the Sifra, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. It may therefore be concluded from the baraita that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דריש לקיש דאמר לרבנן קדשי בדק הבית היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה דאמר קרא והעריך הכהן אתה בין טוב ובין רע

§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Reish Lakish. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation? The reasoning is that the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:12).

איזהו דבר שאינו חלוק בין טוב לרע הוי אומר זה קדשי בדק הבית ואמר קרא אתה למעוטי קדשי מזבח

Rav explained: What is an item for which the halakha is not divided between good and bad, i.e., where there is no difference between unblemished and blemished animals? You must say that this is an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which has the same sanctity whether blemished or unblemished. And the verse states: “And the priest shall value it.” The restrictive term “it” serves to exclude animals consecrated for the altar from the halakha of standing and valuation.

ורבי יוחנן אתה למעוטי מאי למעוטי בעל מום מעיקרו

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar are also included in the obligation of standing and valuation, the term “it” serves to exclude what? The Gemara responds: It serves to exclude from the halakha of standing and valuation an animal that was blemished from the outset and was consecrated for the altar.

ולתנא דבי לוי דאמר דאפילו בעל מום מעיקרו בכלל העמדה והערכה דתני לוי הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה ואפילו בעל מום מעיקרו וכן תני לוי במתניתיה ואפילו חיה ואפילו עופות והכתיב אתה קשיא

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is problematic according to the tanna of the school of Levi, who said that even an animal that was blemished from the outset is included in the halakha of standing and valuation. As Levi taught: Everything was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset. And Levi taught likewise in his baraita: Even an undomesticated animal, and even birds that are not brought as offerings, e.g., geese, are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But isn’t it written “it,” which must serve to exclude some animal from the obligation of standing and valuation? If so, how can Levi teach that everything is included? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון דאמר קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי בדק הבית לא היו דאמר קרא והעריך הכהן אתה בין טוב ובין רע איזהו דבר שחלוק בין טוב ובין רע הוי אומר זה קדשי מזבח ואמר קרא אתה למעוטי בדק הבית

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died without redemption they are buried, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in this halakha? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:11–12). What is an item for which the halakha is divided between good and bad, i.e., between an unblemished and blemished animal? You must say that this is an animal consecrated for the altar, and the verse states: “And the priest shall value it,” which serves to exclude animals consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of standing and valuation.

אי הכי בין טוב לרע מיבעי ליה קשיא

The Gemara asks: If so, that the verse is referring to a consecration for which there is a distinction between good and bad, then it should have stated: And the priest shall value it between good and bad, to indicate that this distinction is made. The term “whether it be good or bad” indicates that the two types have the same halakha, as claimed by the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מיתיבי מתו תמימין יקברו ובעלי מומין יפדו במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית בין תמימין בין בעלי מומים יקברו

§ The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to consecrated animals that died, if they were unblemished they are not redeemed and shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. But with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, both unblemished and blemished animals shall be buried. This is the statement of the Rabbis.

רבי שמעון אומר אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית תמימים יקברו בעלי מומין יפדו תיובתא דרבי יוחנן מרישא

Rabbi Shimon says: Both in a case where the animals that died were consecrated for the altar and in a case where they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, if they were unblemished they can be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first clause of the baraita, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that according to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died.

אמר לך רבי יוחנן הכא במאי עסקינן בבעל מום מעיקרו

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. In such a case, the Rabbis rule that the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and is therefore redeemed if it dies. But a consecrated animal that subsequently developed a blemish and died must be buried.

הכי נמי מסתברא דאי תימא שקדם הקדישן את מומן ליפלוג רבי שמעון עלה אלא לאו שמע מינה בבעל מום מעיקרו

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that the baraita is discussing animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis on this point and maintain that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar should be buried, not redeemed. After all, Rabbi Shimon holds that animals consecrated for the altar are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is dealing with an animal that is blemished from the outset?

אלא לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דריש לקיש

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, and for this reason the Rabbis hold that the animal is redeemed, then it may be inferred that the Rabbis maintain that if the animal developed a blemish after its consecration and died, it must be buried. If so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died.

ריש לקיש מוקים לה בשקדם הקדישן את מומן אי הכי ניפלוג רבי שמעון עלה

The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish interprets the baraita as referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis is in accordance with his opinion that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are therefore redeemed if they died. The Gemara asks: If so, then the earlier question recurs, as Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis and say that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar are buried.

ריש לקיש מיפך אפיך והכי מותיב ממכילתא אחריתי מתו בין תמימין בין בעלי מומין יקברו [במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית יפדו]

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish reverses the text of that baraita, i.e., he maintains that in that baraita, Rabbi Shimon explicitly states that animals consecrated for the altar are buried, whether they are unblemished or blemished. And he raises his objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from another baraita, like this: With regard to consecrated animals that died, whether they were unblemished or blemished, they shall be buried. With regard to what case is this ruling stated? It is stated with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, but in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, they can be redeemed. This is the statement of the Rabbis.

רבי שמעון אומר תמימים יקברו ובעלי מומין יפדו תיובתא דרבי יוחנן מסיפא

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, if they were unblemished they shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the latter clause of the statement of the Rabbis in this baraita. According to the baraita, the Rabbis rule that animals consecrated for the altar are redeemed, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis maintain that animals consecrated for the altar are buried.

אמר לך רבי יוחנן הכא במאי עסקינן בבעל מום מעיקרו הכי נמי מסתברא דאי תימא בשקדם הקדישן את מומן ניפלוג רבי שמעון עלה

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, and the Rabbis hold that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried whereas those consecrated for the altar are redeemed, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis on both accounts, rather than disagreeing merely in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.

אלא לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דריש לקיש אמר לך ריש לקיש הכא במאי עסקינן בשקדם הקדישן את מומן וניפלוג רבי שמעון עלה אמר לך ריש לקיש הכי נמי דפליג רבי שמעון

The Gemara asks: But if so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the Rabbis in the case of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. The Gemara reiterates: But in that case, Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish could say to you: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. The baraita mentions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion only with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance, but he also disagrees with regard to consecrations for the altar.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא לריש לקיש דאמר לרבנן קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה וקתני קדשי מזבח

§ The Gemara further discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and it is taught with regard to animals consecrated for the altar

בעלי מומין יפדו ומוקמינן לה בשקדם הקדישן את מומן שמע מינה פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

that blemished animals can be redeemed; and we established that according to Reish Lakish, the baraita is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, which means that although the animal has inherent sanctity because it was consecrated when unblemished, nevertheless it can be redeemed; let us conclude from the baraita that one may redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs.

הכא במאי עסקינן בשעבר ושחטן

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: One cannot arrive at this conclusion from the baraita, since when the baraita states that the animals died it is not referring to deaths due to natural causes. Rather, what are we dealing with here? With a case where one transgressed the prohibition against slaughtering the blemished animals and slaughtered them before they were redeemed, an act that nevertheless renders them permitted for human consumption after redemption.

כדתניא כל הקדשים שנפל בהן מום ושחטן רבי מאיר אומר יקברו וחכמים אומרים יפדו

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all sacrificial animals that developed a blemish and one slaughtered them, Rabbi Meir says that they shall be buried, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died. And the Rabbis say: Since an animal consecrated for the altar is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even if one slaughtered it, it can be redeemed.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא לרבי שמעון דאמר קדשי בדק הבית לא הוו בכלל העמדה והערכה אמאי תמימים יקברו משום דחזו להקרבה

Rabbi Yirmeya further said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died, why does he state, in the last baraita cited earlier, that unblemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance shall be buried and not redeemed? Rabbi Zeira responds: It is because they are fit for sacrifice upon the altar.

כדתניא המתפיס תמימים לבדק הבית כשהן נפדין אינן נפדין אלא למזבח שכל הראוי למזבח אינו יוצא מידי מזבח לעולם

The Gemara explains the significance of the fact that these animals, which were consecrated for Temple maintenance, are fit for the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: One who associates unblemished animals, i.e., consecrates them by means of associating their sanctity with sanctified items, for Temple maintenance, when they are redeemed by the treasurer they are redeemed only for the altar, i.e., they are sold to those who must bring an offering, and the animals are sacrificed upon the altar. They may be redeemed only for the altar, not for any non-sacred use, as any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the custody of the altar.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואמרי לה רבא לרבי יוחנן דמוקים לה בבעל מום מעיקרו וכולי עלמא סבירא להו דבעל מום מעיקרו דלא הוי בכלל העמדה והערכה ולא

§ The Gemara continues to analyze the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rava said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who interprets the above baraita as referring to an animal blemished from the outset, and who further claims that everyone, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, holds that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, one may ask: And do they both agree that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in that halakha?

והתנן כל הקדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדשן ונפדו חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות ויוצאין לחולין ליגזז וליעבד

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 14a): All the sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration are not sanctified as offerings; rather, they are sold and the money received is used to purchase valid offerings. And once they are redeemed, they are obligated in, i.e., subject to accounting their offspring, a firstborn; and in the priestly gifts of the foreleg, jaw, and maw; and they emerge from their sacred status and assume complete non-sacred status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor.

ולדן וחלבן מותר לאחר פדיונן והשוחטן בחוץ פטור ואין עושין תמורה ואם מתו יפדו

And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, even if the animal was not yet redeemed, and those animals do not render an animal exchanged for them a substitute. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי רבי שמעון דאמר קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי בדק הבית לא היו כדתנן רבי שמעון אומר קדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, with regard to this mishna: This statement, that one who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar may redeem it if it dies, is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, who says that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed, since they were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But animals consecrated for the altar that died are buried, as they were included in this halakha.

ומודה רבי שמעון בבעל מום מעיקרו שנפדה מאי טעמא דאמר קרא אתה אתה למעוטי בעל מום מעיקרו אבל חכמים אומרים אפילו בעל מום מעיקרו היה בכלל העמדה והערכה

And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an animal that was blemished from the outset, which was consecrated for the altar and died, that it is redeemed. What is the reason? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). The emphasis of “it” serves to exclude an animal that was blemished from the outset from the halakha of standing and valuation. But the Rabbis say: Every animal consecrated for the altar, even one that was blemished from the outset, was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and must be buried if it dies. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis an animal that was blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation.

אמר ליה מאן חכמים תנא דבי לוי אי הכי זו דברי רבי שמעון ותו לא זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו מיבעי ליה

Abaye said to Rav Pappa, or Rava: The statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav does not pose a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rav was not referring to the Rabbis of the mishna, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. Rather, who is the tanna referred to here as the Rabbis? It is a tanna of the school of Levi. The other rabbi questioned Abaye’s answer: If so, that even the Rabbis of the mishna hold that an animal that was blemished from the outset is redeemed, why did Rav Yehuda say that Rav said that this mishna in tractate Bekhorot is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, and nothing more? This statement indicates that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon alone. He should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, i.e., the Rabbis.

אמר ליה האי דלא קתני הכי משום דרב סבר לה כריש לקיש דאמר לרבנן קדשי בדק הבית היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי מזבח לא היו

Abaye said to him: The reason that Rav Yehuda does not teach in this manner, i.e., he does not say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis of the mishna, only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation; animals consecrated for the altar were not included, and are therefore redeemed.

ורישא קתני ואם מתו יפדו וסיפא קתני אם מתו יקברו

And admittedly the first clause of the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they can be redeemed. This ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as an animal that was blemished from the outset is considered as one consecrated for the altar, since as it was consecrated in order to be sold to purchase a valid offering. But the latter clause of the mishna, which discusses a case where the consecration of the animal preceded the development of a blemish, is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they shall be buried. According to Reish Lakish and Rav, the Rabbis hold that in such a case the animal is redeemed. Consequently, the mishna cannot be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

ואיבעית אימא רב כרבי יוחנן סבירא ליה ודקא קשיא לך זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו מיבעי ליה אימא הכי נמי

And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the Rabbis maintain that all consecrations were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died, and the mishna is in fact in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And as for that which posed a difficulty for you, that Rav Yehuda should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, say: Indeed he said so, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.

מתני׳ ואלו הן הנקברין קדשים שהפילה יקברו הפילה שליא תקבר ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וצפרי מצורע ושיער נזיר

MISHNA: And these are the items that are buried from which deriving benefit is forbidden: In the case of a sacrificial animal that miscarried, the fetus shall be buried. If the animal miscarried a placenta, the placenta shall be buried. And the same halakha applies to an ox that is stoned for killing a person; and a heifer whose neck is broken when a corpse is found between two cities and the killer is unknown; and the birds brought by a leper for purification; and the hair of a nazirite who became ritually impure, who shaves his head before beginning a new term of naziriteship.

ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה רבי שמעון אומר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה

And the same halakha applies to the firstborn of a donkey that, if it is not redeemed with a sheep, has its neck broken; and a forbidden mixture of meat cooked in milk; and non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned, like sacrificial animals that were disqualified in the courtyard. And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, although it is not similar to the animals sacrificed in the Temple, shall be burned by rabbinic decree.

ואלו הן הנשרפין חמץ בפסח ישרף ותרומה טמאה והערלה וכלאי הכרם את שדרכן לשרוף ישרוף ואת שדרכן להקבר יקבר ומדליקין בפת ובשמן של תרומה כל הקדשים שנשחטו חוץ לזמנן וחוץ למקומן הרי אלו ישרפו

And these are the items that are burned: Leavened bread on Passover shall be burned. And the same halakha applies to ritually impure teruma. And with regard to the fruit that grows on a tree during the three years after it was planted [orla], and diverse kinds of food crops sown in a vineyard, those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be burned, e.g., foods, shall be burned; and those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be buried, e.g., liquids, shall be buried. And one may ignite a fire with bread and with oil of impure teruma, even though the priest derives benefit from that fire. And with regard to all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice or consume them beyond their designated time or outside their designated place, those animals shall be burned.