Temurah 32a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Introduction

It is forbidden to change consecrated offerings of the altar, making them consecrated property for the repair of the Temple. And likewise, it is forbidden to consecrate consecrated property for the repair of the Temple as an offering for the altar. And if he consecrated it as an offering, he did nothing.

Likewise, one does not change consecrated offerings of the altar from one sanctity to another, even from a lesser sanctity to a greater one; for example, it is forbidden to change a peace-offering into a burnt-offering. And all the more so is it forbidden to change from a greater sanctity to a lesser one, for example, to change a burnt-offering into a peace-offering.

What are we speaking of? When the one consecrating wishes to change the very sanctity. But a person can consecrate consecrated offerings of the altar as “enhancement consecration” [which is an expression of assessment and valuation], whereby he “raises” [assesses] the monetary value that the owner of the offering possesses in his offering, and gives the equivalent of the money for the repair of the Temple.

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

[And at the end of tractate Arakhin they learn the matter of “enhancement consecration” from expositions of the verses.]

In any event, even after he consecrated the offering through “enhancement consecration,” the offering remains in its sanctity, and it is offered for the purpose for which it was initially consecrated, except that “enhancement consecration” also takes effect upon it. And the monetary value that the owners possess in the offering is given for the repair of the Temple, or for the herem of the priests.

What are we speaking of? In the case of consecrated offerings of the altar, in which the owners have a monetary interest, whether he designated the offering to fulfill his vow or designated it as a freewill offering, as will be explained. But with consecrated property for the repair of the Temple, in which the owners have nothing, it is impossible to consecrate it through “enhancement consecration.”

a.

Both consecrated offerings of the altar and consecrated property for the repair of the Temple—one does not change them from one sanctity to another.

b.

And one consecrates them,

the consecrated offerings of the altar [but not consecrated property for the repair of the Temple],

“as enhancement consecration.”

For example, if he said concerning a burnt-offering, “This is for the repair of the Temple,” they assess it [appraise it], how much monetary value the one consecrating possesses in this offering, and he gives this money to the treasurer.

c. And

also,

likewise,

“one declares them herem,”

the consecrated offerings of the altar, so that they become a herem for the priests [but one cannot declare consecrated property for the repair of the Temple herem]. That is, he gives the priests money according to what he possesses in them. But he cannot declare consecrated property for the repair of the Temple herem, since it is not his, and he has 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, as when he first said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering,” and he designated this animal for his vow, since if it is stolen or lost he is responsible for his vow, it is found that it is worth all its value to him. Therefore, if he consecrated it as enhancement consecration, he gives its entire value to the treasurer. And likewise, if he declared it herem, he gives its entire value to the priest. But if they are freewill offerings, such as when he consecrated an animal as a burnt-offering as a freewill offering, without accepting upon himself an obligation to bring a burnt-offering, and if it was stolen or lost he is not responsible for it, then he does not possess its entire value, but only the “benefit of ownership,” assessed according to the value that his fellow Israelite would give him in order that he give this burnt-offering to his daughter’s son, a priest, to offer it, so that this priest would receive the hide of the burnt-offering. And according to that amount of money [a small amount] he gives for the repair of the Temple, if he consecrated it for the repair of the Temple, or he gives to the priests, if he declared it herem for the herem of the priests.

d. And the Mishna adds another law concerning consecrated offerings of the altar:

“And if they die”—

“they shall be buried.”

For he cannot redeem them and feed them to dogs, even if a blemish occurred in them before they died, since they were not redeemed. And this law applies not specifically according to the one who says [on the previous page], “One does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs,” but even the one who says, “One redeems consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs,” agrees that he cannot redeem them after their death. For only if it became mortally afflicted while alive and he redeemed it does he disagree and hold that the redemption is effective; but after its death, everyone agrees that it has no redemption, because the Torah said in the passage concerning the redemption of consecrated property [Leviticus 27], “He shall present the animal before the priest, and the priest shall assess,” teaching us that only an animal standing on its feet does the priest assess in order to redeem it, but not a dead animal. And likewise, if he transgressed and slaughtered it before it was redeemed, he can no longer redeem it, since he cannot make it stand and assess it; therefore, it must be buried.

And in the Gemara it will be explained with regard to which consecrated property this is speaking, whether consecrated offerings of the altar or consecrated property for the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Shimon says: Consecrated property for the repair of the Temple—if it dies, it shall be redeemed.

And although he cannot make it stand, because he holds that consecrated property for the repair of the Temple is not included in “presentation and assessment,” for it is not concerning it that the Torah said, “He shall present and assess,” as is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: With regard to consecrated offerings of the altar that he imposed as the herem of the priests,

he did nothing.

And he does not give the priests either their value, in the case of a vow, or their benefit of ownership, 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 heramim [Leviticus 27],

“Every herem is most holy to the Lord.”

And Rav Huna expounded the verse as follows:

“Every herem that is of the most holy [property],

which was initially holy,

it is to the Lord!”

To say that the “power” of a priest cannot take effect upon it.

The Gemara challenges,

Rav Huna from a beraita, in which we learned:

“Consecrated property for the repair of the Temple that he imposed, whether as consecrated offerings of the altar or as the herem of the priests, he did nothing.”

For he cannot remove those very items from their sanctity, while he has no benefit of ownership in them with which to give them to the altar or to the priests, and it follows that he did nothing.

And likewise,

the heramim of the priests,

which are still in the hands of the one who consecrated them and have not been given to a priest,

if he imposed them, whether as consecrated offerings of the altar or as consecrated property for the repair of the Temple, he did nothing,

for the same reason. For he has no share in them whatsoever, and not even a benefit of ownership, since he cannot give them to any priest he wishes, but only to the priests of that division, and they divide them among themselves. [If he could give them to any priest he wished, he would possess a benefit of ownership in them, according to how much an Israelite would give him in order that he give them to his daughter’s son, a priest.]

The Gemara infers from the beraita:

“But consecrated offerings of the altar,”

in which he possesses a benefit of ownership [and all the more so if they are a vow, in which he possesses their entire value, as explained],

“that he imposed as the herem of the priests”—

what he did is effective,

and he gives the benefit of ownership to a priest.

A refutation of Rav Huna

from this beraita!

And we answer:

Rav Huna could say to you:

This inference is only because the tanna of the beraita omitted and did not state the law of consecrated offerings of the altar that he imposed. But this inference is not an inference, because

this

that he omitted,

the reason that he omitted it,

he omitted for this reason,

because he did not wish to state, “Consecrated offerings of the altar that he imposed for the repair of the Temple—he did nothing,” since this is not true;

for consecrated offerings of the altar that he imposed for the repair of the Temple,

indeed,

what he did is effective,

as explained in the Mishna, because we expound, “Every herem is most holy; it is to the Lord.” And what the Torah wrote, “to the Lord,” comes to include one who imposes them for the repair of the Temple, for when their value is given for the repair of the Temple, they are for the Lord. And because of this, the tanna did not state, “Consecrated offerings of the altar...”

But

if he made them subject

to priestly bans—

he did nothing,

as Rav Huna expounded from the verse.

And we raise an objection:

And let him teach it among those!

Should the tanna have taught this law—“consecrated things of the altar that he made subject to priestly bans—he did nothing”—among the other laws in which he did nothing at all?

And we answer:

The tanna

of this beraita taught only

that which has two,

something to which he cannot make them subject for either of two consecrations,

he teaches.

But consecrated things of the altar,

which do not have two,

for with regard to one he can make them subject [to Temple-maintenance consecration], and with regard to the other he cannot make them subject [to priestly bans

, he does not teach!

That is, the tanna made his formulation uniform and taught two consecrations to which he cannot make them subject, corresponding to two other consecrations; but a third consecration that is divided into two—one of which he can make subject to it and the other of which he cannot—he did not teach at all, and omitted it entirely.

And we raise an objection against Rav Huna from our Mishna:

We learned: And one consecrates

them with an elevation consecration and bans them.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

that the Mishna is interpreted as saying that one consecrates

an elevation consecration for Temple maintenance, and bans them with a priestly ban?

Behold, we explicitly learned that one bans consecrated things of the altar with priestly bans!?

And we answer:

No,

the Mishna is interpreted in this way! Rather,

both this and that,

the two expressions stated by the Mishna, “elevation consecration” and “bans,” refer to making consecrated things of the altar subject to

consecrated things for Temple maintenance! And

the meaning of the two expressions is:

it makes no difference

if

he expresses them with the language of consecration for Temple maintenance,

and says concerning his consecrated things, the consecrated things of the altar, “These are consecrated” [and therefore the Mishna calls it “an elevation consecration”

—and it makes no difference

if

he expresses them,

utters them with his lips,

with the language of bans for Temple maintenance,

and says concerning consecrated things of the altar, “These are banned” [and therefore the Mishna calls it “bans”]; with both of these expressions, they become subject to Temple maintenance. But the Mishna did not speak at all of making them subject to “priestly bans”!

And we raise an objection:

But it was not taught

here,

for the beraita that explicates the Mishna did not teach this?

For it was taught: One consecrates

them with an elevation consecration, consecrated things for Temple maintenance, and bans them with priestly bans!

Furthermore, it was explicitly taught,

we learned explicitly in another beraita:

Consecrated things of the altar that he made subject

to priestly bans—

what he did is effective!

A refutation of Rav Huna, a refutation!

But the Gemara argues:

But Rav Huna has a verse!

For he expounded this from what is stated: “Every ban, the holy of holies, is for the Lord”!?

And we answer:

Ulla said: The verse says, “

A ban

is the holy of holies, is for the Lord,” and Scripture added an expression of inclusion by saying, “

Every ban,”

to say that a priestly ban takes effect upon everything, even upon consecrated things of the altar, which are “the holy of holies” .

And it follows from Ulla’s words that he disagrees with Rav Huna, and holds that when one makes consecrated things of the altar subject to priestly bans, the consecrated things become subject to an “elevation consecration,” and he is obligated to appraise their value and give it to the priests.

And the Gemara asks:

But did Ulla say this?!

For Ulla said: One who makes a burnt-offering subject to Temple maintenance,