Temurah 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Introduction

It is prohibited to change consecrated animals designated for the altar, making them consecrated for Temple maintenance. Likewise, it is prohibited to consecrate property designated for Temple maintenance as an offering for the altar. And if he consecrated it as an offering, he has done nothing.

Likewise, one may not change consecrated animals designated for the altar from one level of sanctity to another, even from a lesser sanctity to a greater one. For example, it is prohibited to change a Shelamim offering into an Ola offering. All the more so, it is prohibited to change a greater sanctity into a lesser one, such as changing an Ola offering into a Shelamim offering.

This statement applies when the person making the consecration wishes to change the essential sanctity. But a person may consecrate property designated for the altar through “higher consecration” [which is an expression of appraisal and evaluation], whereby he “raises” [appraises] the monetary value that the owner of the offering possesses in his offering, and gives that monetary value to Temple maintenance.

Likewise, a person may declare his offering herem for the “herem of the priests” [as will be explained below].

And at the end of tractate Arakhin, the matter of “higher consecration” is derived through expositions of the verses.

Nevertheless, even after he has consecrated the offering through “higher consecration,” the offering remains in its sanctity and is sacrificed for the purpose for which it was originally consecrated; it merely also acquires the status of “higher consecration.” The monetary value that the owners possess in the offering is given to Temple maintenance or to the herem of the priests.

This statement applies to property designated for the altar, in which the owners possess monetary value, whether they set aside the offering to fulfill a vow or set it aside as a freewill offering, as will be explained. But with regard to property designated for Temple maintenance, in which the owners possess nothing, it is impossible to consecrate it through “higher consecration.”

a.

Both property designated for the altar and property designated for Temple maintenance may not be changed from one level of sanctity to another.

b.

And one may consecrate them

—the property designated for the altar [but not property designated for Temple maintenance]—

through “higher consecration.”

For example, if one said regarding an Ola offering, “This is for Temple maintenance,” its value is appraised [that is, they assess] how much monetary value the consecrator possesses in this offering, and he gives this money to the treasurer.

c.

And

likewise,

“one may declare them herem,”

property designated for the altar, so that it becomes a herem for the priests [but one cannot declare property designated for Temple maintenance herem]. That is, he gives the priests money according to the value that he possesses in the offering. But he cannot declare property designated for Temple maintenance herem, because it does not belong to him and he possesses nothing in it, as will be explained.

The monetary value that a person possesses in his offerings depends on whether they are a vow or a freewill offering. If they are a vow, meaning that he first said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an Ola,” and then set aside this animal for his vow, since if it is stolen or lost he is responsible for fulfilling his vow, it follows that it is worth its entire monetary value to him. Therefore, if he consecrated it through “higher consecration,” he gives its entire value to the treasurer. Likewise, if he declared it herem, he gives its entire value to a priest. But if it is a freewill offering—for example, he consecrated an animal as an Ola as a freewill offering, without undertaking an obligation to bring an Ola, so that if it is stolen or lost he is not responsible for it—then he does not possess its entire value. Rather, he possesses only the “benefit of use,” which is assessed according to the amount that another Israelite would give him so that he would give this Ola to his daughter’s son, a priest, to sacrifice it, so that this priest would receive the hide of the Ola. And according to that amount [a small sum] he gives to Temple maintenance if he consecrated it for Temple maintenance, or he gives to the priests if he declared it herem for the herem of the priests.

d. The Mishna adds another law concerning property designated for the altar:

“And if they die”—

“they must be buried.”

For one may not redeem them and feed them to dogs, even if a blemish befell them before they died, since they were not redeemed. This law applies not only according to the one who says [on the previous page], “One may not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs,” but even the one who says, “One may redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs,” agrees that one may not redeem them after their death. The dispute applies specifically when the animal became mortally ill while alive and he redeemed it: that sage maintains that the redemption is effective. But after its death, everyone agrees that it cannot be redeemed, because the Torah said in the passage concerning the redemption of consecrated animals [Leviticus 27], “He shall stand the animal before the priest, and the priest shall appraise it,” teaching us that only an animal standing on its feet can be appraised by the priest for redemption, but not a dead animal. Likewise, if one transgressed and slaughtered it before it was redeemed, he can no longer redeem it, since he cannot stand it up and appraise it; therefore, it must be buried.

The Gemara will explain with regard to which consecrated property this is stated, whether property designated for the altar or property designated for Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Shimon says: Property designated for Temple maintenance, if it dies, may be redeemed.

And although one cannot stand it up, because he maintains that property designated for Temple maintenance is not included in the law of “standing and valuation”; the Torah’s statement, “He shall stand it up and appraise it,” does not refer to such property, as explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: With regard to property designated for the altar that one applied to the herem of the priests,

he has done nothing.

And he does not give the priests either its monetary value in the case of a vow or its benefit of use in the case of a freewill offering [and later the Gemara will challenge Rav Huna from our Mishna]!

What is the reason?

He said: The verse states in the passage concerning herem [Leviticus 27]:

“Every herem, it is holy of holies to the Lord.”

And Rav Huna expounded the verse as follows:

“Every herem that is of holy of holies

and was initially holy,

it is for the Lord!”

This teaches that the “power” of a priest cannot take effect upon it.

Meytivi,

the Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna from a beraita in which we learned:

With regard to property designated for Temple maintenance that one applied either to property designated for the altar or to the herem of the priests, he has done nothing.

For he cannot remove the property itself from its sanctity, while he possesses no benefit of use in it that he could give to the altar or to the priests, and it follows that he has done nothing.

Likewise,

the herem of the priests,

which is still in the hands of the person who declared it herem and has not yet given it to a priest,

if he applies it either to property designated for the altar or to property designated for Temple maintenance, he has done nothing,

for the same reason. He possesses no share in it whatsoever, not even a benefit of use, since he cannot give it to any priest he wishes; rather, he may give it only to the priests of the current watch, and they divide it among themselves. [If he could give it to any priest he wished, he would possess a benefit of use in it, namely, the amount an Israelite would give him in order that he give it to his daughter’s son, a priest.]

The Gemara infers from the beraita:

But property designated for the altar,

in which he possesses a benefit of use [and all the more so if it is a vow, in which case he possesses its entire value, as explained],

that one applied to the herem of the priests—

what he did is effective,

and he gives the benefit of use to a priest.

A refutation of Rav Huna

from this beraita!

And we answer:

Rav Huna can say to you:

The inference is only because the tanna of the beraita omitted and did not state the law concerning property designated for the altar that one applied [to another sanctity]. But this inference is not valid, because

the fact

that he omitted it

—the reason he omitted it—

is due to this matter that he omitted: He omitted it because he did not wish to state, “Property designated for the altar that one applied to Temple maintenance—he has done nothing,” since that is untrue.

For offerings consecrated for the altar that one designated for the Temple repairs

For property designated for the altar that one applied to Temple maintenance

indeed,

what he did is effective,

as stated in the Mishna, because we expound: “Every herem that is holy of holies—it is for the Lord.” The Torah’s statement “for the Lord” comes to include property that one applied to Temple maintenance, because when its monetary value is given to Temple maintenance, it is for the Lord. For this reason, the tanna did not state, “Property designated for the altar.”

However,

if he designated them

for the herem of the priests—

he has accomplished nothing,

as Rav Huna expounded from the verse.

And we challenge this:

Then let the tanna teach it among those cases!

Should the tanna have included this law—“If one designates sacrificial offerings for the herem of the priests, he has accomplished nothing”—among the other cases in which he has accomplished nothing?

And we answer:

The tanna

of this beraita teaches only

a matter in which there are two,

namely, something that cannot be designated for either of two forms of sanctity;

that is what he teaches.

But sacrificial offerings,

in which there are not two,

since they can be designated for one of them [the consecrated property for Temple maintenance], but cannot be designated for the other [the herem of the priests],

he does not teach!

That is, the tanna maintained a parallel formulation and taught two forms of sanctity for which an item cannot be designated, corresponding to two other forms of sanctity. But he did not teach anything at all about a third form of sanctity that divides into two: for one of them he can designate the item, whereas for the other he cannot. He omitted it entirely.

And we challenge Rav Huna from our Mishna:

We learned: And one may consecrate

them with a consecration of enhanced sanctity and declare them subject to a herem.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

that the Mishna is to be understood as stating that one consecrates

them with a consecration of enhanced sanctity for Temple maintenance, and declares them subject to the herem of a priest?

It follows that we explicitly learned that one may declare sacrificial offerings subject to the herem of the priests!?

And we answer:

No,

that is not how the Mishna is to be understood. Rather,

both this and that,

the two expressions used by the Mishna, “a consecration of enhanced sanctity” and “declaring them subject to a herem,” refer to designating sacrificial offerings for

consecrated property for Temple maintenance! And

the meaning of the two expressions is:

it makes no difference

if

he expresses it in the language of consecration for Temple maintenance,

saying concerning his sacrificial offerings, “These are consecrated” [and therefore the Mishna calls it “a consecration of enhanced sanctity”],

and it makes no difference

if

he expresses it,

verbalizing it,

in the language of a herem for Temple maintenance,

saying concerning the sacrificial offerings, “These are subject to a herem” [and therefore the Mishna calls it “declaring them subject to a herem”]. In both of these expressions, they become designated for Temple maintenance. But the Mishna did not discuss designation for the “herem of the priests” at all!

And we challenge this:

But it was not taught

here;

the beraita that explains the Mishna did not teach this.

As it was taught:

One may consecrate them with a consecration of enhanced sanctity, as consecrated property for Temple maintenance, and declare them subject to the herem of the priests!

Furthermore, it was explicitly taught,

as we learned explicitly in another beraita:

If one designates sacrificial offerings

for the herem of the priests—

what he has done is effective!

A refutation of Rav Huna, a refutation!

But the Gemara argues:

Yet Rav Huna cited a verse!

He expounded this from what is stated: “Every herem is most holy to the Lord”!?

And we answer:

Ulla said: The verse states, “

A herem

is most holy to the Lord,” and Scripture added an expression of inclusion by stating

“every herem,”

to teach that the herem of the priests applies to everything, even to sacrificial offerings, which are “most holy” .

It follows from Ulla’s words that he disagrees with Rav Huna and holds that when one designates sacrificial offerings for the herem of the priests, the offerings become subject to “a consecration of enhanced sanctity,” and he must assess their value and give it to the priests.

The Gemara asks:

But did Ulla really say this?!

Yet Ulla said: If one designates a burnt-offering for Temple maintenance,