Temurah 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

There is only a delay

for the Temple treasurers alone.

The offering cannot be sacrificed until the treasurers come to stand over it at the time of its sacrifice, because the owners of an offering must stand over their offering when it is sacrificed, as explained in tractate Ta'anit [26a]. Once he consecrated it for the maintenance of the Temple, the treasurers, who are its owners, must stand over it. But he need not assess its value and give that amount to the Temple treasury.

And if so, all the more so, if he designated them for the ḥermei kohanim, he need not give them anything. For even Rav Huna, who is lenient and holds that with regard to ḥermei kohanim one need not give them anything, nevertheless holds that if one designates offerings of the altar for the Temple treasury, he assesses their value and gives it to the Temple treasury. It is evident that designation for the ḥermei kohanim is less stringent than designation for the Temple treasury. Now, Ulla, who holds that even in the case of designation for the Temple treasury one need not give their value, certainly holds this with regard to designation for the ḥermei kohanim. And why did he interpret the verse unlike Rav Huna, seeing that he agrees with him?

And we answer: What the beraita said, that super-consecration takes effect upon offerings of the altar, requiring their value to be given to the Temple treasury, is

only by rabbinic decree,

and by Torah law one need not give their value to the Temple treasury; there is only a delay for the treasurers, in accordance with Ulla's statement. And what Ulla explained concerning the verse, “Every devoted thing, most holy, is the Lord's,” namely, that it comes to teach that super-consecration takes effect upon offerings of the altar, requiring their value to be given to the Temple treasury, is merely an asmakhta—a rabbinic law supported by an allusion in the verse. In truth, it is only a rabbinic law. But what is the principal exposition of this verse?

And the verse concerning

sacrilege

comes to teach,

that one commits sacrilege with ḥermei kohanim until they are given into the possession of a priest. And this is how we expound it: “Every devoted thing” that was devoted to the priests is “most holy; it is the Lord's,” like other consecrated property with which one commits sacrilege; even if one derives only slight benefit from it, one has committed sacrilege, and from the word “every” we learn that one commits sacrilege through any benefit from a devoted object.

And we challenge this: There is no need for a special inclusion from the word “every” to teach that one commits sacrilege with them. It is sufficient that the Torah calls ḥermei kohanim “most holy,” which teaches that they involve sacrilege—

For sacrilege? !

Why do I need a verse? Is it not written concerning it,

“most

holy”

?

The Gemara answers that it is not sufficient that the Torah calls them “most holy” to teach that one commits sacrilege with them. It proves this from Rabbi Yannai's statement, for he did not derive the law of sacrilege with regard to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering from the fact that they are called “most holy” several times in their respective passages in the Torah.

And according to your reasoning,

according to your view that sacrilege should be derived from “most holy,” there is a difficulty:

that which Rabbi Yannai said: The law of sacrilege is explicitly stated by the Torah only with regard to

an elevation-offering

alone, as it is stated

in the passage concerning sacrilege [Leviticus 5],

“If a person commits a sacrilegious act and sins unintentionally against the sacred property of the Lord,”

namely, elevation-offerings, which are

uniquely designated for the Lord,

their flesh and portions burned entirely for the Lord.

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

explicitly from the Torah,

but only from

the exposition

that

Rabbi expounded,

Rabbi.

As it is taught—

as we learned in a beraita—

Rabbi says:

The Torah says in the passage concerning peace-offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity [Leviticus 3],

“Every fat belongs to the Lord.”

And the verse's use of the word “every”

comes to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity with regard to sacrilege.

And from the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity we also learn the law concerning a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for they too are designated “for the Lord,” like the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity.

The respondent concludes: And according to your reasoning, there is a difficulty:

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 written concerning them,

“most holy”

?

Evidently, it proves that

although

“most holy”

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

to include them

with regard to sacrilege.

And Ulla's statement is thereby resolved, for

with regard to devoted property as well, although

“most holy”

is written concerning it, a verse is needed to include it with regard to sacrilege.

And from the word “every” we derive the law of sacrilege, not the law of super-consecration. Indeed, super-consecration is only rabbinic, and by Torah law there is only a delay for the treasurers.

Another version:

And

we challenge this:

But Rav Huna is stating a derivation from a verse!

And we answer:

It is needed for him,

the verse “Every devoted thing, most holy, is the Lord's,” for another exposition,

as it is taught:

And the Sages

say:

Unspecified ḥeramim are for the priests.

As it is stated

in the passage concerning the gifts to the priests [Numbers 18],

“Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours.”

If so, what does the verse teach

“Every devoted thing, most holy, is the Lord's”?

It teaches that

a ḥerem designated for the priests

takes effect upon most holy offerings and upon offerings of lesser sanctity.

The Gemara explains:

From where do we know this,

that is, how did the Sages expound this verse

to apply ḥeramim to offerings of the altar?

Ulla said: For it is written

“every devoted thing,”

and we expound the inclusion of “every” to mean

“upon every sacred thing,”

both most holy offerings and offerings of lesser sanctity;

the

ḥerem designated for the priests takes effect.

We challenge this:

Did Ulla really say this?

But Ulla said: An elevation-offering that one designated for the Temple treasury—

there is only a delay for the treasurers.

Evidently, property consecrated for the Temple treasury does not take effect upon offerings of the altar,

and one need not redeem them and give their value to the Temple treasury; all the more so if one designated them for ḥermei kohanim?

Ulla's statement implies that if one designates offerings of the altar for the Temple treasury, they may be sacrificed without redemption and without giving their value to the Temple treasury; the only effect of his consecration is a delay for the treasurers, and this is certainly true with regard to ḥermei kohanim. Therefore we challenge this:

Can they really be sacrificed,

that is, can they be sacrificed without redemption?!

But the verse says

“And every devoted thing, most holy, is the Lord's,”

which implies that a ḥerem designated for the priests takes effect upon “every” sacred thing, both most holy offerings and offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is forbidden to slaughter or sacrifice them until the super-consecration is redeemed, with the money given to the Temple treasury. How, then, did Ulla say that “there is only a delay for the treasurers”?

And we answer: The law of super-consecration is

rabbinic, and this verse is merely an asmakhta,

and by Torah law there is only a delay for the treasurers.

But if so, what does the verse come to teach?

It is needed for the law of sacrilege with regard to ḥeramim.

We challenge this:

For sacrilege?

It can be derived from

“most holy.”

And we answer: This exposition from

“most holy”

does not seem valid to him,

so as to derive sacrilege from it, for

did

—that is,

did Rabbi Yannai not say: The law of sacrilege is explicitly stated by the Torah only with regard to an elevation-offering, as it is stated

“If a person commits a sacrilegious act and sins unintentionally against the sacred property of the Lord,”

that is uniquely designated for the Lord.

What sacred object is uniquely designated for the Lord?

You must say: This is an elevation-offering!

But a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are derived only from Rabbi's teaching.

As it is taught, Rabbi says:

The Torah says,

“Every fat belongs to the Lord,”

to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity with regard to sacrilege.

Evidently,

“most holy”

does not seem valid to him.

If so,

Ulla too

does not accept

“most holy”

This concludes the alternate version.

The essential matter: One who consecrates an elevation-offering for the Temple treasury—

there is only a delay for the treasurers.

We challenge this:

Meytivi,

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who consecrates an elevation-offering for the Temple treasury—

it is forbidden to slaughter it until it is redeemed.

This is a difficulty against Ulla!

And we answer: What the beraita stated is a law

of rabbinic origin,

as explained above.

The Gemara explains:

This too is reasonable,

that it is only rabbinic.

As it teaches in the latter clause

of the beraita:

If he transgressed and slaughtered it,

without redemption,

what he did is effective.

And if

it were

by Torah law, why

“is what he did effective”?

Why would he not have to redeem it afterward? Where do we find that, after the fact, an act that violates a Torah prohibition is effective? It must be said that the prohibition is only rabbinic.

We challenge this:

But what do you mean,

can it be said that it is only

rabbinic?

If so, let us consider 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 offerings of the altar and one on account of property consecrated for the Temple treasury.

And if

the sanctity of the Temple treasury took effect upon it

by rabbinic law, why

do they

commit two acts of sacrilege? Is it not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple treasury only by rabbinic law? And we answer: It is always 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 to be understood:

It is fit to involve two acts of sacrilege,

if its second sanctity were by Torah law; but in practice one commits only one act of sacrilege by Torah law, because it is an offering of the altar, and not on account of its being consecrated for the Temple treasury, since by Torah law it involves only a delay for the treasurers.

We learned in our Mishna:

And if they died, they must be buried; Rabbi Shimon says: If property consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple died, it is redeemed.

The statement of the first tanna does not explicitly say whether it concerns property consecrated for the Temple treasury or offerings of the altar; it is stated in general terms: “And if they died, they must be buried.” Our sugya discusses this matter. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree about it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the Rabbis—

both offerings of the altar and property consecrated for the Temple treasury were included in the requirement of standing and valuation,

and they cannot be redeemed after their death, but only during their lifetime, while they are standing on their feet, at which point they can be valued.

And Reish Lakish said: According to the Rabbis—

property consecrated for the Temple treasury was included in the requirement of standing and valuation,

whereas

offerings of the altar were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation,

and they may be redeemed after their death. Later in the sugya, the reason for the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon will be explained from expositions of the verses, both according to Rabbi Yoḥanan and according to Reish Lakish.

The Gemara explains:

Both this one and that one,

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, both

agree

with Rabbi Shimon that property consecrated for the Temple treasury was not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, whereas offerings of the altar were included in the requirement of standing and valuation.

This is also stated explicitly in the Mishna: “Rabbi Shimon says: Property consecrated for the Temple treasury is redeemed.” It follows that offerings of the altar require standing and valuation, for otherwise he should have stated simply, “They are redeemed.”

The Gemara further explains:

And according to everyone,

both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that when we say that offerings of the altar were included in the requirement of standing and valuation, this applies to an animal that was consecrated while unblemished and subsequently developed a blemish. But with regard to a

permanent ba'al mum,

one that was consecrated for the altar while already blemished—

it was not included in the requirement of standing and valuation,

both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Shimon. The reason will be explained later in the sugya.

It is obvious that only with regard to offerings of the altar is there a distinction between an animal that was unblemished and then became blemished and one that was permanently blemished. But with regard to property consecrated for the Temple treasury [according to the Rabbis, as explained by Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish], there is no basis for this distinction at all, for its sanctity takes effect even upon wood and stones.

The Gemara infers from the wording of our Mishna that the halakha follows Rabbi Yoḥanan.

We learned: Rabbi Shimon says: Property consecrated for the Temple treasury that died is redeemed.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: According to the Rabbis, both this and that were included in the requirement of standing and valuation—

this is why Rabbi Shimon needed to specify

“property consecrated for the Temple treasury”

that died is redeemed,

for had he said simply, “They are redeemed,” it would have implied that he disagreed with the first tanna with regard to both categories. Therefore he specified “property consecrated for the Temple treasury”—

But according to Reish Lakish,

there is a difficulty:

Why did he need to specify it?

For the Rabbis said that they must be buried only with regard to property consecrated for the Temple treasury. If so,

let him say,

Rabbi Shimon should have said,

“If they died, they are redeemed,”

and we would understand that he was referring to property consecrated for the Temple treasury, since that is what the first tanna was discussing.

And we answer:

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

Since the first tanna did not state his words explicitly,

this is what he said to him,

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

If,

if you said

with regard to offerings of the altar,

which require standing and valuation—

I concede to you,

and I too hold as you do.

If

if you said

with regard to property consecrated for the Temple treasury,

I do not concede to you, and I hold:

“If they died, they are redeemed.”

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

Another version:

And we challenge Reish Lakish:

We challenge Reish Lakish:

We learned,

in our Mishna, in the statement of the first tanna,

“If they died, they must be buried.”

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

which teaches

“both offerings of the altar and property consecrated for the Temple treasury

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

A refutation of Reish Lakish!

And we resolve:

No! Interpret it:

explain: the words of the first tanna

refer to consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance,

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

And we challenge:

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

consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance, if they died, they are redeemed.”

Why?

Why did he say “consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance”? Is it not the case that

since the first tanna is referring to consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance, let Rabbi Shimon say to him “

If they died, they are redeemed”?

And we resolve:

Reish Lakish could have said to you: Rabbi Shimon holds that the first tanna’s

“they shall be buried”

applies to both,

he said “they shall be buried” both with regard to consecrated animals intended for sacrifice and with regard to consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance.

And Rabbi Shimon said to him: If you are speaking about consecrated animals intended for sacrifice—

I concede your point; but if you are speaking about consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance—

I do not concede your point.

It was taught,

we learned a beraita

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan:

The Torah states in the passage concerning the redemption of consecrated property [Leviticus 27:11–12]: “

And if any impure animal

which they may not bring as an offering from it

as an offering to the Lord, he shall stand the animal before the koen. The koen shall value it, whether it is good or bad; as the valuation of the koen, so shall it be.”

And we expound:

The verse speaks of animals with blemishes that were redeemed,

as they are unfit for sacrifice, and the Torah states that they are redeemed through standing and valuation.

And the beraita continues:

You say that it speaks of animals with blemishes; or perhaps it does not

speak

except about an impure animal,

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

When it says,

in place of “said” [there, in verse 27], “

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

behold, an impure animal has already been mentioned!