Temurah 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

c. Likewise, consecrated offerings of the altar,

their offspring and their milk—

are forbidden after their redemption.

The milk of consecrated offerings of the altar is forbidden even after their redemption, as we learned [at the end of the preceding chapter], as it is stated with regard to consecrated animals that were disqualified and redeemed: “You shall slaughter and eat meat,” and we expound: meat, but not milk. But milk obtained from animals consecrated with the sanctity of property for Temple maintenance becomes permitted through redemption.

The offspring of consecrated offerings of the altar are forbidden when their mothers conceived them before being redeemed and gave birth after being redeemed, whereas the offspring of consecrated property for Temple maintenance, once redeemed, are permitted.

d.

And one who slaughters them outside,

outside the Temple,

is liable

to karet. This does not apply to consecrated property for Temple maintenance.

e.

And one may not give any of them,

from consecrated offerings of the altar,

to artisans

who build and repair in the Temple

as their wages;

rather, they take their wages from the funds for Temple maintenance, as the Gemara will explain.

This does not apply to consecrated property for Temple maintenance.

There are

laws applying to consecrated property for Temple maintenance that do not apply to consecrated offerings of the altar—

a.

Unspecified consecrations—

if one consecrated an item without specifying whether it was for Temple maintenance or for the altar, they are

for Temple maintenance,

even if the item was something suitable for the altar.

b.

And consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect upon everything,

even upon wood and stones. But consecrated offerings of the altar apply only to something suitable for sacrifice.

c.

And one commits misuse with their growths.

For example, if one consecrated a hen for Temple maintenance and it laid an egg, one commits misuse with its egg. This does not apply to consecrated offerings of the altar: if one consecrated a cow, one does not commit misuse with the milk obtained from it.

d.

And the priests derive no benefit from them [

another version:

the owners].

This does not apply to consecrated offerings of the altar, whose meat is eaten by the priests, and in the case of a burnt-offering, the priests receive the hide. In the case of the Paschal offering and the animal tithe, everything belongs to the owners.

We learned in our Mishna: Offerings consecrated for the altar can generate a substitute offering. And the Gemara asks:

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: Consecrated offerings of the altar can generate a substitution.

And we challenge this:

But

is it a general principle that all consecrated offerings of the altar can generate a substitution? Yet there are birds [and meal-offerings],

which are consecrated offerings of the altar, and

nevertheless

we learned

[above, 13a]:

Meal-offerings and birds—

cannot generate a substitution?

And we answer:

When it teaches this, it refers to animals.

What the Mishna said—that consecrated offerings of the altar can generate a substitution—does not apply to all consecrated offerings of the altar, but only to animals. That is, all animals consecrated as offerings of the altar can generate a substitution, whereas animals consecrated for Temple maintenance cannot generate a substitution.

And we challenge this:

But what of the offspring

of consecrated animals, which are animals,

and are consecrated offerings of the altar, and we learned

[above, 12a]:

An offspring cannot generate a substitution?

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this?

The Mishna is in accordance with whose approach?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says

[there]:

An offspring can generate a substitution.

And we challenge this:

But what of a substitution itself, which is a consecrated offering of the altar, and we learned

[there]:

A substitution cannot generate a substitution?

And we answer:

When it teaches this,

the Mishna’s statement that consecrated offerings of the altar can generate a substitution refers

to the principal offering

[literally: to the principal]

sacrifice,

to offerings that themselves were consecrated, and not to their substitutions.

Now that you have arrived at this,

now that you have established that the Mishna refers to the principal sacrifice, there is no longer any need to establish it as the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather,

you may even say

that it is the opinion of

the Rabbis. And regarding the challenge, “But an offspring cannot generate a substitution,” we will answer:

When it teaches this, it refers to the principal sacrifice,

and not to an offspring or a substitution. We learned in our Mishna:

And one may not give any of them to artisans as their wages.

and we expound: “For Me”—

The Gemara infers:

This implies that with regard to consecrated property for Temple maintenance, one may give

it to artisans as wages for strengthening the structures of the Temple.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these words derived,

from where do we know that artisans may be paid from the consecrated money designated for Temple maintenance?

Rabbi Abbahu said: As the verse says

[Exodus 25]: “

And they shall make Me a Sanctuary,”

and we expound: “For Me”—

from that which is Mine,

so that the Sanctuary will be made from funds consecrated for the needs of the Sanctuary.

We learned in our Mishna:

There are laws applying to consecrated property for Temple maintenance, that unspecified

consecrations are for Temple maintenance.

to people who had vowed to bring a burnt-offering. And the females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings. And their proceeds shall be added with the rest of the property for Temple maintenance.

The meaning of this statement is that even if one consecrated an animal suitable for sacrifice without specifying whether he was consecrating it for the altar or for Temple maintenance, it is consecrated for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara discusses this:

Who is the tanna who holds that unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance?

Who is the tanna who maintains this view?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua!

As we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Shekalim [chapter 4, Mishna 7]:

One who consecrates his property

without specification,

and among it are animals suitable for the altar, males and females,

that are unblemished—

Rabbi Eliezer says: The males shall be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings,

to someone who has vowed to bring a burnt-offering.

And the females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings. And their proceeds shall fall, together with the rest of the property, to Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance [like the tanna of our Mishna], even when they are animals suitable for sacrifice. However, the animals themselves are not redeemed in order to render them non-sacred, as is the case with other consecrated property for Temple maintenance, which is redeemed even without a blemish. Rather, they are sold to those obligated to bring offerings, for the purpose of an offering. Since they are unblemished, their law is that they never leave the domain of the altar. Their proceeds fall to Temple maintenance, and through these proceeds the consecrator’s intent is fulfilled, since he consecrated them without specification for Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The males—

they themselves shall be sacrificed as burnt-offerings,

for the sake of the one who consecrated them.

And the females—

shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and he shall bring burnt-offerings from their proceeds,

for the sake of the consecrator.

And the rest of the property shall fall to Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a person does not abandon consecrated offerings of the altar in order to consecrate them for Temple maintenance. Rather, one who consecrates something suitable for the altar without specification consecrates it for the altar; it is merely that an unspecified consecration for the altar is for a burnt-offering. Our Mishna, which states that unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance, follows Rabbi Eliezer and not Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara explains: And

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who establishes our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

disagrees with Rav Adda bar Ahava,

who holds that even Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one who consecrates an animal without specification consecrates it for the altar.

According to him, Rabbi Eliezer disputes Rabbi Yehoshua only in a particular case, as will be explained:

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: In a herd consisting entirely of males, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes

that they themselves are to be brought as burnt-offerings for the needs of the consecrator, because

a person does not abandon [

one who leaves]

consecrated offerings of the altar and consecrate them for Temple maintenance.

A person does not consecrate an animal for Temple maintenance when he has the possibility of consecrating it for the altar.

They did not disagree— Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua— except with regard to a herd containing half males and half females .

Alternatively, some state it as follows: Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: When he consecrated only animals [all his animals], even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that a person does not abandon offerings for the altar and consecrate them for Temple maintenance. Even though there are females among them, they are sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are purchased with their proceeds and brought for the person who consecrated them; the males themselves are brought as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer too holds that everything was vowed for the altar.

Rabbi

Eliezer holds: A person does not divide his vow.

A person does not ordinarily make a vow of consecration and divide it, assigning half to one sanctity, to a burnt-offering, and half to another sanctity, to the value of a burnt-offering.

And since the females are not burnt-offerings,

the males too are not burnt-offerings

that he consecrated. Rather, everything falls to Temple maintenance, as one vow.

for the altar.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: A person does divide his vow,

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: A person does divide his vow,

the males for a burnt-offering and the females for the value of a burnt-offering.

Alternatively, some state it as follows: Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: When he consecrated only animals

But according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, they disagree about whether unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance. It makes no difference whether the herd consists entirely of males or contains half males and half females [and whether other property is present or not ].

And the Gemara raises a difficulty from the wording of the Mishna against the first version:

[all his animals],

even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a person does not abandon consecrated offerings of the altar and consecrate them for Temple maintenance.

Even though there are females among them, they are sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are purchased with their proceeds and sacrificed for the consecrator’s needs; the males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer too holds that everything was vowed for the altar. They disagreed only when other property was with them, items that are not suitable for sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer holds: A person does not divide his vow. And since he did not consecrate the other property for consecrated offerings of the altar, he did not consecrate the animals either for

consecrated offerings of the altar.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: A person does divide his vow;

whatever is suitable for Temple maintenance he consecrated for Temple maintenance, and whatever is suitable for the altar he consecrated for the altar.

Explanation and summary: According to the first formulation, they disagree concerning whether “a person divides his vow” with regard to his animals. It makes no difference whether other property is with them or not. According to the alternative formulation, they disagree concerning whether “a person divides his vow” with regard to all his property. It makes no difference whether the herd consists entirely of males or consists of half males and half females.

According to both formulations, Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua that “a person does not abandon consecrated offerings of the altar and consecrate them for Temple maintenance.”

But according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who said that Rabbi Yohanan said, they disagree concerning whether “unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance.” It makes no difference whether the herd consists entirely of males or consists of half males and half females [and whether other property is with them or no other property is with them ].

And the Gemara answers: Indeed!

Teach—

The Gemara challenges the first formulation from the language of the Mishna:

We learned:

We learned in that Mishna, in Rabbi Eliezer’s statement:

“And their proceeds shall fall” “

together with the rest of the property”

“to Temple maintenance.”

What does the Mishna come to include by using the word “everything”—what becomes consecrated with the sanctity of Temple maintenance but does not become consecrated with the sanctity of offerings for the altar?

to the repair of the House.

Granted, according to the latter formulation,

where Rabbi Eliezer’s rationale is the presence of the other property that falls to Temple maintenance, and since a person does not divide his vow, the animals too fall to Temple maintenance,

this is why it teaches the phrase “together with the rest of the property” “to Temple maintenance”—

But according to the first formulation,

where Rabbi Eliezer’s rationale is that a person does not divide the vow concerning his animals, whether or not other property is with them, the difficulty is: Why did the Mishna teach “together with the rest of the property”? Even when other property is not with them, Rabbi Eliezer holds that they fall to Temple maintenance. It should have taught,

“And their proceeds shall fall to Temple maintenance.”

And we answer: Indeed!

As we learned

Teach

that the text should read: “And their proceeds shall fall to Temple maintenance.” We learned in our Mishna:

Consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect upon everything.

The Gemara discusses this:

What does this come to include?

What item does the Mishna come to include by using the expression “everything,” which becomes consecrated with the sanctity of Temple maintenance but not with the sanctity of the altar?

if one

Ravina said: It comes to include wood shavings and fallen leaves.

Wood shavings and leaves that fall during the winter and are used as fertilizer for fields. If one consecrated a tree for Temple maintenance, it is forbidden to fertilize with its shavings or with leaves that fall from it without redeeming them from the treasurer, and one who uses them commits misuse. But with regard to consecrated offerings of the altar, if the treasurers purchased wood for the wood of the arrangement on the altar, they plane the wood and cut it to the required measurements for the arrangement, and one does not commit misuse with either the shavings or the fallen leaves. This is because, when the treasurer purchases the wood, he pays only for the portion suitable for the arrangement, and not for the shavings and the pieces cut off. And so we learned in tractate Meila [14a].

We learned in our Mishna:

And one commits misuse with their growths.

The Gemara discusses this:

What does this come to include?

With which growths does one commit misuse in consecrated property for Temple maintenance, whereas one does not commit misuse in consecrated offerings of the altar?

Rav Pappa said: It comes to include the milk

of consecrated animals and the eggs of doves

of consecrated offerings of the altar, with which one does not commit misuse, whereas with those of property consecrated for Temple maintenance one does commit misuse.

With regard to which growths does one commit me'ila in the consecrated things for the repair of the House, but does not commit me'ila in the consecrated things of the altar?

With regard to property consecrated for Temple maintenance, it is appropriate to teach that one consecrated a hen and a she-ass, which are things unsuitable for the altar. In the case of the she-ass there is an additional innovation: although it is a non-kosher animal, it nevertheless receives the sanctity of Temple maintenance.

As we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Meila [12b]:

The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of doves— one may neither derive benefit from them nor commit misuse with them.

By Torah law, one does not commit misuse with them, but it is nevertheless forbidden to derive benefit from them.

With regard to what cases are these words said? With regard to consecrated offerings of the altar. But with regard to consecrated property for Temple maintenance, if one consecrated a hen, one commits misuse with its egg;

if one consecrated

a she-ass, one commits misuse with its milk. [In the case of consecrated property for Temple maintenance, it is appropriate to teach that one consecrated a hen and a she-ass, items that are not suitable for the altar. In the case of the she-ass there is an additional novelty: although it is a non-kosher animal, it nevertheless acquires the sanctity of property for Temple maintenance. In the case of consecrated offerings of the altar, it is appropriate to teach doves and lactating animals, which are suitable for the altar and are not consecrated for Temple maintenance.]

such as milk and eggs,

there is no liability for misuse of them.

if one

consecrated a she-ass, one commits me'ila with its milk.

But with regard to property consecrated for Temple maintenance, everything is suitable in terms of its monetary value, and there is liability for misuse in every case.

The Gemara explains:

And even according to the one who says that one commits misuse with the growths of consecrated offerings of the altar, this applies

to which growths?

To growths that are suitable for the altar,

which themselves are suitable for the altar, such as the offspring of consecrated animals. But with growths that are not suitable for the altar, such as milk and eggs, one does not commit misuse with them. But with regard to consecrated property for Temple maintenance, everything is suitable in terms of its monetary value, and one commits misuse with all of it.

We learned in our Mishna:

and there is no

benefit from them for the kohanim.

Ravina said: Even from shifuyei and nevayya the kohanim do not derive benefit,

of consecrated property for Temple repair.