Temurah 31b — the Talmud in English

C. And likewise, the consecrated things of the altar,

their offspring and their milk —

are forbidden after their redemption.

The milk of the consecrated things of the altar is forbidden even after their redemption, as we learned [at the end of the previous chapter], for it is stated concerning consecrated animals with a disqualification that were redeemed: “You shall slaughter, and you shall eat meat,” and we expound: meat, but not milk. But the milk milked from animals consecrated with the sanctity of the repair of the House is permitted through redemption.

The offspring of the consecrated things of the altar are forbidden when their mothers became pregnant before they were redeemed and gave birth after they were redeemed, whereas the offspring of the consecrated things for the repair of the House that were redeemed are permitted.

D.

And one who slaughters them outside,

outside the Temple,

is liable

for karet. This is not so with regard to the consecrated things for the repair of the House.

E.

And they do not give from them,

from the consecrated things of the altar,

to artisans,

who build and repair in the Temple,

as their wages,

but they take their wages from the repair of the House, as will be explained in the Gemara.

This is not so with regard to the consecrated things for the repair of the House.

There is

in the consecrated things for the repair of the House that is not in the consecrated things of the altar —

A.

For unspecified consecrations,

when one consecrated something without specification and did not say whether it was for the repair of the House or for the altar, are

for the repair of the House,

even if there was among them something fit for the altar.

B.

And the consecration for the repair of the House takes effect upon everything,

even upon wood and stones. But the consecrated things of the altar apply only to something fit for sacrifice. C.

And

one derives benefit from their growths.

For example, one who consecrates a hen for the repair of the House, and it laid an egg, one derives benefit from its egg. This is not so with regard to the consecrated things of the altar, for if one consecrated a cow, one does not derive benefit from the milk milked from it.

D.

And there is no benefit from them for the priests [

another version:

for the owners].

This is not so with regard to the consecrated things of the altar, whose flesh is eaten by the priests, and in the case of a burnt-offering the priests receive the hide. And in the case of the Paschal offering and animal tithe, everything belongs to the owners.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The consecrated things of the altar effect temura.

And we raise an objection:

And

is it

a general rule that all the consecrated things of the altar effect temura? Yet there are birds [and meal-offerings],

which

are consecrated things of the altar, and

nevertheless

we learned [

above, 13a]:

Meal-offerings and birds —

do not effect temura?

And we answer:

When it teaches this, it teaches it with regard to an animal.

What the Mishna said, that the consecrated things of the altar effect temura, does not apply to all the consecrated things of the altar, but only to an animal. That is, all animals that are consecrated things of the altar effect temura, whereas animals that are consecrated things for the repair of the House do not effect temura.

And we raise an objection:

Yet there is the offspring

of consecrated things, which is an animal,

and

it is a consecrated thing of the altar, and we learned [

above, 12a]:

An offspring does not effect temura?

And we answer:

Whose view is this?

It is the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who says [

there]:

An offspring effects temura.

And we raise an objection:

Yet there is temura itself, which is a consecrated thing of the altar, and we learned [

there]:

A temura does not effect temura?

And we answer:

When it teaches this,

what the Mishna said, that the consecrated things of the altar effect temura, that is

with regard to the principal [

with regard to the principal]

sacrifice,

consecrated things that were themselves consecrated, and not their temurot.

Now, since you have arrived at this,

now that you have come to establish the Mishna with regard to the principal sacrifice, there is no longer a need to establish it according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rather,

you may even say that it is according to the Rabbis.

And concerning the objection, “Yet an offspring does not effect temura,” we will answer:

When it teaches this, it teaches it with regard to the principal sacrifice,

and not with regard to an offspring or a temura. We learned in our Mishna:

And they do not give from them to artisans as their wages.

and we expound: “For Me”—

And the Gemara infers:

But the consecrated things for the repair of the House, they give

to artisans as wages for strengthening the repair of the House.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words,

from where do we know that they give artisans their wages from the money of the repair of the House, which is consecrated?

Rabbi Abbahu said: For the verse says [Exodus 25], “

Who is the tannai who holds this opinion?

And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary,” and we expound: “For Me,”

As we learned in the Mishna in tractate Shekalim [chapter 4, Mishna 7]:

from what belongs to Me,

so that the making of the Sanctuary should be from what was consecrated for the needs of the Sanctuary.

We learned in our Mishna:

There is in the consecrated things of the House, that unspecified

consecrations are for the repair of the House.

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 these words is that even if one consecrated an animal fit for sacrifice without specification, and did not say whether he was consecrating it for the altar or for the repair of the House, it is consecrated for the repair of the House.

And the Gemara discusses:

Who is the tanna who teaches that unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the House?

Who is the tanna who holds this view?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is not according to Rabbi Yehoshua!

As we learned

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

One who consecrates his possessions

without specification,

and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males and females,

unblemished —

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

to one who vowed to bring a burnt-offering.

And the females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings. And their money shall fall together with the rest of the possessions to the repair of the House.

For he holds that unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the House [like the tanna of our Mishna!], even animals fit for sacrifice. But the animals themselves are not redeemed to take them out into the non-sacred, like other consecrated things for the repair of the House that are redeemed without a blemish; rather, they are sold to those liable to bring an offering, for the purpose of an offering. Since they are unblemished, their law is that they never leave the domain of the altar. And their money falls to the repair of the House, and through this money the intention of the one who consecrated them is fulfilled, for he consecrated them without specification for the repair of the House.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The males —

they themselves shall be brought 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 from their money he shall bring burnt-offerings,

for the sake of the one who consecrated them.

And the rest of the possessions shall fall to the repair of the House.

For he holds that a person does not leave consecrated things of the altar in order to consecrate them for the repair of the House; rather, when one consecrates without specification something fit for the altar, he consecrated it for the altar, except that an unspecified consecration of the altar is for a burnt-offering. And our Mishna, which said, “Unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the House,” follows Rabbi Eliezer and not Rabbi Yehoshua. And the Gemara explains:

And

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who establishes our Mishna according to Rabbi Eliezer,

disagrees with Rav Adda bar Ahava,

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

And according to him, Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with Rabbi Yehoshua only in a certain manner, as will be explained: For Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: In a herd consisting entirely of males —

even Rabbi Eliezer agrees

that they themselves shall be brought as a burnt-offering for the purpose of the one who consecrated them, because

a person does not leave [

who leaves]

consecrated things of the altar and consecrate them for the repair of the House.

For a person does not consecrate for the repair of the House when he has the possibility of consecrating for the altar.

They did not disagree, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, except with regard to a herd in which there are half males and half females .

Rabbi

Eliezer holds: A person does not divide his vow,

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

And since

from among

the females are not burnt-offerings,

the males also are not burnt-offerings

that he consecrated. Rather, everything falls to the repair of the House, as one vow.

consecrating for Temple maintenance whatever is suitable for Temple maintenance, and consecrating for the altar whatever is suitable for the altar.

Summary: According to the first version, they disagree about whether a person divides his vow with regard to his animals. It makes no difference whether other property is present with them. According to the alternative version, they disagree about whether a person divides his vow with regard to all his property. It makes no difference whether the herd consists entirely of males or contains half males and half females.

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.

Another formulation, some say it thus: Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: When he consecrated only an animal [ all his animals], even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that a person does not leave consecrated things of the altar and consecrate them for the repair of the House. And even though there are females among them, they shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and from their money burnt-offerings shall be purchased and brought for the purpose of the one who consecrated them, while the males shall themselves be brought as burnt-offerings. And Rabbi Eliezer too holds that everything was a vow for the altar. They disagreed only when there are other possessions together with them, things that are not fit for sacrifice.

We learned:

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

Rabbi Eliezer holds: A person does not divide his vow.

And since the other possessions he did not consecrate for the consecrated things of the altar

he did not consecrate the animal either

for the consecrated things of the altar.

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

and whatever is fit for the repair of the House he consecrated for the repair of the House, and whatever is fit for the altar he consecrated for the altar.

Explanation and summary: According to the first formulation, they disagreed concerning “a person divides his vow” with regard to his animals. There is no distinction between whether other possessions are with them or not. And according to the other formulation, they disagreed concerning “a person divides his vow” with regard to all his possessions. There is no distinction between a herd consisting entirely of males and a herd consisting of half males and half females.

And according to both formulations Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua that “a person does not leave consecrated things of the altar and consecrate them for the repair of the House.”

But according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, they disagreed concerning “unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the House.” There is no distinction between a herd consisting entirely of males and a herd consisting of half males and half females [and between whether other possessions are with them and whether other possessions are not with them ].

it should read:

“And their proceeds shall go to Temple maintenance.”

And the Gemara raises an objection from the wording of the Mishna against the first formulation:

We learned,

we learned in that Mishna, in the words of Rabbi Eliezer:

And their money shall fall “

together with the rest of the possessions”

to the repair of the House.

Granted, according to the latter formulation, that the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is because of the other possessions that fall to the repair of the House, and since a person does not divide his vow, the animals too shall fall to the repair of the House, this is why it teaches,

These are wood shavings and leaves that fall in the winter and are used as fertilizer for fields. If one consecrated a tree for Temple maintenance, it is prohibited to fertilize with its shavings and fallen leaves without redeeming them from the treasurer; one who uses them is liable for misuse. But with offerings consecrated for the altar, if treasurers purchased wood for the arrangement of wood on the altar, they plane and cut the wood to the required size. There is no liability for misuse of either the shavings or the fallen leaves, since when the treasurer purchases the wood, he pays only for the part suitable for the arrangement, not for the shavings and trimmings. And so we learned in tractate Me'ila [14a].

therefore the Mishna stated, “

together with the rest of the possessions”

to the repair of the House —

But according to the first formulation,

that the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that a person does not divide the vow concerning his animals, whether other possessions are with them or whether other possessions are not with them, it is difficult: Why did the Mishna state, “together with the rest of the possessions”? After all, even when other possessions are not with them, Rabbi Eliezer holds that they shall fall to the repair of the House, and

As we learned

let it teach,

the Mishna should have stated, “And their money shall fall to the repair of the House.” And we answer: Indeed!

Teach,

it should read,

“And their money shall fall to the repair of the House.”

We learned in our Mishna:

The consecration for the repair of the House takes effect upon everything.

And the Gemara discusses:

What does it come to include?

What thing does the Mishna come to include when it says “everything,” which is consecrated with the sanctity of the repair of the House but is not consecrated with the sanctity of the altar?

And one commits misuse with their growths.

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

Sawdust and leaves that fall during the winter and are used to fertilize fields. If one consecrated a tree for the repair of the House, it is forbidden to fertilize with its sawdust and with the leaves that fall from it without redeeming them from the treasurer, and one who uses them has committed me'ila. But with regard to the consecrated things of the altar, if treasurers purchased wood for the wood of the arrangement on the altar, they smooth the wood and cut it according to the measure of the wood of the arrangement, and one does not commit me'ila either with the shavings or with the cuttings, because when the treasurer purchases the wood, he does not give money for anything except the portion suitable for the arrangement, and not for sawdust and cuttings. And likewise we learned in tractate Me'ila [14a].

We learned in our Mishna:

And one derives benefit from their growths.

And the Gemara discusses:

What does it come to include?

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?

Rav Pappa said: It comes to include the milk

of consecrated animals and the eggs of doves

of the consecrated things of the altar, in which one does not commit me'ila, whereas with those of the repair of the House one does commit me'ila.

And the Gemara explains:

As we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Me'ila [12b]:

The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of doves —

one may neither benefit from them nor commit me'ila,

according to Torah law one does not commit me'ila with them, but nevertheless it is forbidden to benefit from them.

In what case are these words said? With regard to the consecrated things of the altar. But with regard to the consecrated things for the repair of the House, if one consecrated a hen, one commits me'ila with its egg;

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?

With regard to the consecrated things for the repair of the House, it is appropriate to teach that he consecrated a hen and a she-ass, which are things unfit for the altar. And with the she-ass there is an additional innovation, that even though it is an impure animal, nevertheless it has the sanctity of the repair of the House. But with regard to the consecrated things of the altar, it is appropriate to teach doves and milk-producing animals fit for the altar, which one does not consecrate for the repair of the House.

And the Gemara explains: And even according to the one who says that one commits me'ila with the growths of the altar, this applies to which growths does he hold that one commits me'ila? With growths that are fit for the altar, which themselves are fit for the altar, such as the offspring of consecrated animals. But growths that are not fit for the altar, such as milk and eggs, one does not commit me'ila with them. But with regard to the consecrated things for the repair of the House, everything is fit with regard to its monetary value, and with all of them one commits me'ila.

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.