Temurah 32b — the Talmud in English

It contains only a delay ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

of the treasurers alone.

For he cannot offer it until the treasurers come to stand over it at the time of its offering, because the owners of the offering must stand over their offering at the time it is offered, as explained in tractate Ta'anit [26a]; and once he consecrated it for the Temple maintenance, the treasurers, who are its owners, must stand over it. But he does not need to appraise its value and give it to the Temple maintenance.

And if so, all the more so if he assigned them to the hermei kohanim, he does not need to give them anything. For even Rav Huna, who is lenient and holds that with hermei kohanim he does not need to give them anything, nevertheless holds that if one assigns sacrificial sanctities to the Temple maintenance, he appraises their value and gives it to the Temple maintenance. And it is proven that assigning to hermei kohanim is more lenient in relation to assigning to the Temple maintenance. From now, Ulla, who holds that even when assigning to the Temple maintenance he does not give their value, all the more so when assigning them to hermei kohanim. And why did he interpret the verse unlike Rav Huna, when he agrees with him?

And we answer: What the beraita said,

that a superior consecration takes effect upon sacrificial sanctities, to give their value to the Temple maintenance, is

only rabbinic, and by Torah law he does not need to give their value to the Temple maintenance, and it contains only a delay of the treasurers, in accordance with Ulla. And what Ulla explained—that the verse, “Every devoted thing, it is most holy to the Lord,” comes to teach us that a “superior consecration” takes effect upon sacrificial sanctities, to give their value to the Temple maintenance—is merely an asmachta, and in truth it is nothing other than a rabbinic law. But, what is the primary exposition from this verse?

And the verse for “

sacrilege”

is what it came for,

to teach us that one commits sacrilege with hermei kohanim until they are given into the hand of a koen. And this is how we expound it: “Every devoted thing” that was devoted to the kohanim is “most holy; it is to the Lord,” like other consecrated things with which one commits sacrilege, and even if he derived only slight benefit from them, from “every” benefit of the devoted thing, he has committed sacrilege.

And we challenge: For this there is no need for a special inclusion from “every” to teach us that one commits sacrilege with them; it is enough for us that the Torah calls hermei kohanim “most holy,” to teach us that there is sacrilege with them—

For sacrilege? !

Why do I need a verse? Is it not that

“holy

of holies”

is written concerning it?

And the Gemara answers that it is not enough that the Torah calls them “most holy” to teach us that one commits sacrilege with them. And it proves this from the words of Rabbi Yannai, who did not learn sacrilege with a sin offering and a guilt offering from the fact that they are called in the Torah by the name “most holy” many times in their passages.

And according to your reasoning,

according to your reasoning, that sacrilege should be learned from “most holy,” this is difficult:

that which Rabbi Yannai said: Sacrilege is explicitly stated by the Torah only with

an elevation offering

alone! As it is stated

in the passage concerning sacrilege [Leviticus 5], “

When a person commits sacrilege and sins unintentionally from the holy things of the Lord,”

and that refers to elevation offerings, whose meat and sacrificial portions are

designated for the Lord,

entirely for the Lord.

But a sin offering and a guilt offering are not derived,

we do not have it explicitly in the Torah,

but from

the exposition

that

Rabbi

expounded.

For it was taught,

as we learned:

Rabbi says:

The Torah said in the passage of peace offerings, which are lesser sanctities [Leviticus 3], “

All fat is for the Lord.”

And the verse came with “all”

to include the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctities for sacrilege.

And from the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctities one can also learn concerning a sin offering and a guilt offering, which are likewise designated “for the Lord,” like the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctities .

And the respondent concludes: And according to your reasoning, this is difficult:

Why do I need a verse,

why did Rabbi Yannai need to include a sin offering and a guilt offering from a verse? Is it not that

“most holy”

is written concerning them?

Thus, it is proven that

even though “

most holy”

is written concerning them, a verse is needed to include them,

to include them

for sacrilege.

And Ulla’s words are thereby resolved, for

devoted things also, even though “

most holy”

is written concerning them, a verse is needed to include them for sacrilege.

And from what is stated “every,” we expound it for sacrilege, and not to teach us a “superior consecration.” Indeed, it is only rabbinic, and by Torah law they contain only a delay of the treasurers.

Another version:

And

we challenge:

But Rav Huna says a verse?!

And we answer:

He needs it,

the verse “Every devoted thing, it is most holy; it is to the Lord,” for another exposition,

as it was taught,

and the Sages

say:

Unspecified devoted things are for the kohanim.

As it is stated

in the passage of the gifts of the koanim [Numbers 18], “

Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours.”

If so, what does

“Every devoted thing, it is most holy; it is to the Lord”

teach? That

a herem of kohanim

takes effect upon most holy sanctities and upon lesser sanctities.

The Gemara explains:

From where do we know,

that is, how did the Sages expound this verse,

that a devoted thing takes effect upon sacrificial sanctities?

Ulla said: For it is written “

Every devoted thing,”

and we expound from the inclusion of “every,”

upon every holy thing,

most holy sanctities and lesser sanctities,

the devoted thing

of kohanim takes effect.

And we challenge:

But did Ulla say this?

For Ulla said: An elevation offering that one assigned to the Temple maintenance—

it contains only a delay of the treasurers alone.

Thus, sacrificial sanctities do not take effect for Temple maintenance upon sacrificial sanctities,

and he does not need to redeem them and give their value, and all the more so if he assigned them to hermei kohanim?

It follows from Ulla’s words that if one assigned sacrificial sanctities to the Temple maintenance, they are offered without redemption, without giving their value to the Temple maintenance, and his consecration contains only a delay of the treasurers, and all the more so with regard to hermei kohanim. Therefore we challenge:

And do we offer them,

and would they offer them without redemption?!

But the verse says “

And every devoted thing, it is most holy; it is to the Lord,”

and it follows that a herem of kohanim takes effect upon “every” holy thing, most holy sanctities and lesser sanctities, and it is forbidden to slaughter and offer them until the superior consecration is redeemed, and the money is given to the Temple maintenance. How, then, did Ulla say, “they contain only a delay of the treasurers”?

And we answer: The law of a “superior consecration” is

rabbinic, and this verse is merely an asmachta,

and by Torah law they contain only a delay of the treasurers.

But if so, for what purpose did the verse come?

It is needed for sacrilege involving devoted things.

And we challenge:

For sacrilege? !

Let it be derived from

“most holy”?

And we answer: This exposition of

“most holy”—

it is not plausible to him,

to expound sacrilege from it, because

did

he not

say: Rabbi Yannai: Sacrilege is explicitly stated by the Torah only with an elevation offering alone, as it is stated “

When a person commits sacrilege and sins unintentionally from the holy things of the Lord”—

those designated for the Lord.

Which holy thing is designated for the Lord?

You must say: This is an elevation offering!

But a sin offering and a guilt offering come only from Rabbi’s teaching.

For it was taught, Rabbi says:

The Torah said, “

All fat is for the Lord,”

to include the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctities for sacrilege.

Thus, “

most holy”

is not plausible to him.

If so,

Ulla also, “

most holy”

is not plausible to him.

Thus far the other version.

The subject itself: One who consecrates an elevation offering for the Temple maintenance—

it contains only a delay of the treasurers alone.

And we challenge:

We challenge

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who consecrates an elevation offering for the Temple maintenance—

it is forbidden to slaughter it until it is redeemed.

And this is difficult for Ulla!

And we answer: What the beraita said is a law

rabbinic,

as explained above.

The Gemara explains:

This too is logically indicated,

that it is only rabbinic.

For since the latter clause teaches

of the beraita:

If he transgressed and slaughtered it,

without redemption,

what he did is effective.

And if

it were

by Torah law, why “

what he did is effective”?

And why would he not now need to redeem it? Where do we find that, after the fact, transgressing a Torah prohibition is effective? It is necessarily said that it is only rabbinic.

And we challenge:

But if so,

is it possible to say that it is only

rabbinic?

If so, let us say the latter clause; how is the latter clause of the beraita to be understood? For we learned in the latter clause:

And

those who derive benefit from it

commit two acts of sacrilege,

one on account of sacrificial sanctities and one on account of the sanctities of the Temple maintenance—the Temple maintenance.

And if

the sanctity of the Temple maintenance took effect upon it

rabbinically, why

do they commit

two acts of sacrilege? Is it not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple maintenance only rabbinically? And we answer: In truth, it is only rabbinic, and

Is it not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple treasury only by rabbinic law? We answer: It is indeed only rabbinic, and

this is what it says,

and this is how the beraita is understood:

It is fit for two acts of sacrilege,

had its second sanctity been by Torah law; but in practice he commits only one act of sacrilege by Torah law, on account of its being sacrificial sanctities, but not on account of the sanctities of the Temple maintenance, for by Torah law it contains only a delay of the treasurers.

We learned in our Mishna:

And if they died, they are to be buried; Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctities of the Temple maintenance—if they died, they are to be redeemed.

Now, in the words of the first tanna it is not stated explicitly whether the subject is the sanctities of the Temple maintenance or sacrificial sanctities, and it is stated in the general wording, “And if they died, they are to be buried.” Our discussion deals with this matter. Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disputed it.

Rabbi Yohanan said: According to the Rabbis—

both sacrificial sanctities and the sanctities of the Temple maintenance were included in standing and valuation,

and they are not redeemed after their death, but only during their lifetime, while they are still standing on their feet, and then they are valued.

And Resh Lakish said: According to the Rabbis—

the sanctities of the Temple maintenance were included in standing and valuation,

whereas

sacrificial sanctities were not included in standing and valuation,

and they are redeemed after their death . The reason for the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, from expositions of the verses, will be explained in the continuation of the discussion, both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Resh Lakish.

The Gemara explains:

And both,

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, both

agree

with Rabbi Shimon that the sanctities of the Temple maintenance were not included in standing and valuation, whereas sacrificial sanctities were included in standing and valuation.

And it is stated explicitly in the Mishna, “Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctities of the Temple maintenance are to be redeemed”; it follows that sacrificial sanctities require standing and valuation, for if not, he should have said in an unspecified manner, “They are to be redeemed.”

The Gemara further explains:

And everyone,

both Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish agree that when it was said that sacrificial sanctities were included in standing and valuation, this applies to an animal that was consecrated unblemished and afterward developed a blemish; but in the case of a

blemished from the outset,

which was consecrated for the altar while it was blemished—

it was not included in standing and valuation,

both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Shimon , and the reason will be explained in the continuation of the discussion.

And it is obvious that only with sacrificial sanctities is it relevant to distinguish between an unblemished animal that became blemished and one blemished from the outset; but with the sanctities of the Temple maintenance [according to the Rabbis, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish!], this distinction is entirely irrelevant, for its sanctity takes effect even upon wood and stones.

The Gemara infers from the wording of our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

We learned: Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctities of the Temple maintenance that died are to be redeemed.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says: According to the Rabbis, both this one and that one were included in standing and valuation—

this is why Rabbi Shimon needed to specify “

the sanctities of the Temple maintenance”

that died are to be redeemed;

and if he had said merely “they are to be redeemed,” it would have implied that he disagrees with the first tanna concerning both of them. Therefore he specified “the Temple maintenance”—

But according to Resh Lakish,

this is difficult:

Why did he need to specify it,

for the Rabbis said “they are to be buried” only with regard to the sanctities of the Temple maintenance? If so—

let him say,

Rabbi Shimon should have said, “

If they died, they are to be redeemed,”

and we would understand that his intention was to the sanctities of the Temple maintenance, since the first tanna spoke about them?

And we answer:

Resh Lakish could say to you: Rabbi Shimon did not know what the first tanna said!

Since the first tanna did not state explicit words,

and this is what he said to him,

and this is what Rabbi Shimon said to the first tanna:

If,

if you spoke

of sacrificial sanctities,

which require standing and valuation—

I agree with you,

and I too hold as you do.

If ,

if you spoke of

the sanctities of the Temple maintenance,

I do not agree with you, and I hold, “

If they died, they are to be redeemed.” Therefore he emphasized and said, “the Temple maintenance.”

Therefore, he emphasized and said, “property consecrated for the Temple treasury.”

Another version:

And we challenge Reish Lakish:

And we challenge Resh Lakish:

We learned,

we learned in our Mishna in the words of the first tanna, “

If they died, they are to be buried.”

What, is it not referring to the first clause? Are his words not a continuation of the beginning of the Mishna,

which teaches “

both sacrificial sanctities and the sanctities of the Temple maintenance

are not altered,” and concerning both of them the first tanna says that they require standing and valuation?

Refutation of Resh Lakish!

And we answer:

No! Explain it:

interpret it as referring to the words of the first tanna,

concerning the sanctities of the Temple treasury,

and they are not a continuation of the beginning of the Mishna.

And we raise an objection:

If so, say the final clause: Rabbi Shimon says “

the sanctities of the Temple treasury, if they died, they are redeemed.”

Why—why

did he say “the sanctities of the Temple treasury”? Surely

since the first tanna was referring to the sanctities of the Temple treasury, Rabbi Shimon should have said to him “

if they died, they are redeemed”?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish says to you: Rabbi Shimon holds that the first tanna

said, “they shall be buried,”

and was referring to both of them:

he said “they shall be buried” both concerning the sanctities of the altar and concerning the sanctities of the Temple treasury.

And Rabbi Shimon said to him: If you are speaking concerning the sanctities of the altar—

I agree with you; but if you are speaking concerning the sanctities of the Temple treasury—

I do not agree with you.

It was taught,

we learned a beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan:

The Torah said in the section concerning the redemption of sanctified animals [Leviticus 27:11–12]: “

And if it is any impure animal

which they may not offer from it

as an offering to the Lord, he shall set the animal before the koen. And the koen shall value it, whether good or bad. As the valuation of the koen, so shall it be.”

And we expound:

The verse speaks of blemished animals that have been redeemed,

for it is impure for offering, and the Torah said that it is redeemed through standing and valuation.

And the beraita continues:

You say that it speaks of blemished animals, or perhaps it does not

speak

but of an impure animal,

such as a horse, camel, or donkey that was consecrated for the Temple treasury, and that requires standing and valuation? And the beraita answers:

When it says,

in the place where it said [there, in verse 27], “

And if it is an impure animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation”—

behold, an impure animal has already been stated!