Temurah 33a — the Talmud in English

Then what do I establish “

And any impure animal from which they do not bring an offering to the Lord” —

with animals possessing disqualifying defects that were redeemed.

And the beraita continues:

I might have said

I would say:

they shall be redeemed

even

for a temporary defect?

The verse says: “

from which they do not bring

an offering,” and we expound:

that which is not offered at all,

because it has a permanent defect, is redeemed —

this one is excluded,

the animal with a temporary defect,

which is not offered today, but tomorrow,

and is not redeemed.

And the Gemara concludes: And concerning this animal, which is among the sanctities of the altar,

the Merciful One said: “

Perform for it standing and valuation,”

as it is stated: “And he shall have the animal stand, and the priest shall value it.” But as for the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, the beraita would not discuss whether it has a permanent defect or a temporary defect—for with the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance there is no practical difference in all this, and they are redeemed even without any defect at all—and it is proven that this beraita holds that “the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation.”

And in this beraita, which is taught in the Sifra [the Book of the Priests], it is Rabbi Judah, for “an anonymous Sifra is Rabbi Judah,” and he is the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, who is the first tanna of our Mishna. And after we have proved that he holds concerning the sanctities of the altar that standing and valuation are required, and together with the implication of the Mishna—that the first tanna certainly spoke of the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, as explained above from Rabbi Shimon’s response—it has been proved that the first tanna holds, both concerning the sanctities of the altar and concerning the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, that they were included in standing and valuation—in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan!

Another wording

Since it teaches,

from what the beraita taught: “

Behold, an impure animal is mentioned”—

by implication, they are alike,

for the beraita considered them one matter, and they are equal with regard to the law of their redemption, and the tanna of the beraita

holds: The sanctities of the altar are written, and the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance are written

and concerning them it is written: “

And he shall have it stand and value it,”

as Rabbi Yohanan explains it according to the Rabbis.

The Gemara expounds the verse according to Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, according to the Rabbis.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav

What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance were included in standing and valuation, but the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation?

For the verse says: “

And the priest shall value it, whether good or bad,”

implying as it is, whether it is “good”—that is, unblemished—or whether it is “bad”—that is, possessing a disqualifying defect—and both are equal. And we expound:

What is the matter that is not divided between good and bad?

You must say: The sanctities designated for Temple maintenance. And concerning them the Torah said: “And he shall have it stand and value it.”

And the verse says “

it”—

to exclude the sanctities of the altar,

which are not included in “standing and valuation.”

And according to this exposition, the two verses [11:12] are divided into two parts. What is stated, “And any impure animal from which they do not bring an offering to the Lord,” refers to the sanctities of the altar, as is demonstrated by what is stated, “from which they do not bring” . And what is stated afterward, “And he shall have the animal stand before the priest, and the priest shall value it whether good or bad,” refers to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, and the Torah teaches us that they require standing and valuation.

And we ask:

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that according to the Rabbis what the Torah said, “And he shall have it stand and value it,” refers both to what is stated, “from which they do not bring,” whose meaning is the sanctities of the altar, and to what is stated, “whether good or bad,” whose meaning is the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, and concerning both the Torah said that they require standing and valuation—this is difficult: What is stated, “

it,”

what does it exclude?

And we answer:

To exclude an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset

among the sanctities of the altar, which are not included in standing and valuation.

And Reish Lakish does not require an exclusion for an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset, for he holds, according to the Rabbis, that the sanctities of the altar are not included in standing and valuation even when the animal was unblemished and then became blemished .

And the Gemara discusses:

And according to the tanna of the school of

in the study hall of

Levi, who says that even an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset is

included in standing and valuation—

For Levi taught: Everything was included in standing and valuation, even an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset.

And Levi likewise taught in his Mishna,

in his version of the Mishna, in the words of the first tanna: “And if they died, they shall be buried,”

and even

if he consecrated

an animal

for the altar,

and even birds,

geese and roosters, which are entirely unfit for the altar—they shall be buried and not redeemed, because standing and valuation are required—this is difficult:

What does “

it” exclude?

exclude?

And we conclude: Indeed! “

It,”

according to the tanna of the school of Levi—

is difficult!

The Gemara explains the reason of Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation, but the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance were not?

For the verse says [there, verse 12]: “

there, verse 12, “

And the priest shall value it whether good or bad,”

and we expound:

What is the matter that is divided between good and bad,

that is, between an unblemished animal and one possessing a disqualifying defect?

You must say: This is the sanctities of the altar. And concerning them the Torah said, “And he shall have it stand and value it,” and from here we know that the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation. And from where do we know that the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance were not included in standing and valuation?

And concerning them the Torah said, “He shall have it stand and valuate it,” and from here we know that consecrated animals of the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated. And from where do we know that items consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in that requirement?

The verse says “

it,”

to exclude

the sanctities

designated for Temple maintenance .

And we ask:

If so,

if we expound “whether good or bad” as referring to something in which there is a distinction between good and bad—“

between good and bad”

should have been written,

for then it would have implied something in which there is a distinction, as Rabbi Shimon says. But the Torah wrote “whether” and “whether,” whose meaning is: both good and bad—they are both equal, the meaning of the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance?

And we conclude: Indeed!

It is difficult!

The Gemara brings a beraita to raise a difficulty both against the words of Rabbi Yohanan and against the words of Reish Lakish.

The meitivi,

from what we learned in a beraita:

They died,

the sanctities of the altar when they are

unblemished—

they shall be buried. And those possessing disqualifying defects—

they shall be redeemed.

It might enter your mind that this beraita holds according to the Rabbis that the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation, like Reish Lakish, and therefore those possessing disqualifying defects shall be redeemed. Nevertheless, if they are unblemished, since they were actually fit to be offered—in view of their great importance—the Sages were stringent with them, that they should not be redeemed, but should be buried .

And the beraita continues:

In what case are these words said,

that those possessing disqualifying defects shall be redeemed,

with regard to the sanctities of the altar,

since they were not included in standing and valuation;

but with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance—

whether unblemished or possessing disqualifying defects, they shall be buried,

because they were included in standing and valuation.

This is the first clause of the beraita, and its meaning according to the initial assumption is like the words of Reish Lakish according to the Rabbis.

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi Shimon says: Both the sanctities of the altar and the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, when unblemished—

they shall be buried; those possessing disqualifying defects—

they shall be redeemed.

Now, what he said, “the unblemished shall be buried,” has already been explained as being because of their great importance [even with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance! And this will be explained further in the sugya]. But what he said, “those possessing disqualifying defects shall be redeemed,” even with regard to the sanctities of the altar, is certainly difficult! For according to all opinions, both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Reish Lakish, Rabbi Shimon holds that the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation, as will be explained further in the sugya.

And Reish Lakish raises an objection:

A refutation of Rabbi Yohanan from the first clause!

For it states there, according to the Rabbis, that the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed, whereas Rabbi Yohanan holds according to the Rabbis that they shall be buried?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here,

what did this beraita discuss,

with an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset!

As explained above, with an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset, according to everyone it is redeemed without standing and valuation. In what case are these words said? With regard to the sanctities of the altar. But with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, there is no distinction between an unblemished animal and one possessing a disqualifying defect, and in either case it shall be buried, for standing and valuation are required.

And Rabbi Yohanan explains: This answer is not merely a rejection, but

this too is logically indicated,

from the words of the beraita there is a necessity to establish it as referring to an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset!

For if you say,

if you establish it as referring to

one whose defect preceded his consecration,

and you wish to prove that according to the Rabbis the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation, this is difficult:

Rabbi Shimon should have disputed this,

why did he say that animals possessing disqualifying defects among the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed? Surely Rabbi Shimon holds that the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation!

Rather, is it not that you may infer

that it is speaking

of an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset,

and therefore Rabbi Shimon agreed that animals that possessed their defects from the outset among the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed [whereas concerning the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, Rabbi Shimon certainly holds that they shall be redeemed, since they were not included in standing and valuation].

And the entire beraita is resolved according to Rabbi Yohanan, when we establish it as referring to an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset.

And now, the difficulty is turned against the words of Reish Lakish:

Rather, shall we say that it is a refutation of Reish Lakish.

For from the words of Rabbi Shimon it was necessary to explain the beraita specifically as referring to an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset, and we shall infer: It is only because it possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset that the Rabbis said, concerning the sanctities of the altar, that it should be redeemed; but if it was unblemished and became blemished, the Rabbis hold that it should be buried! And this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who holds according to the Rabbis that the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish establishes it,

he establishes the words of the Rabbis in the first clause

as referring to one whose defect preceded his consecration,

and even so the Rabbis hold that it shall be redeemed, because they hold that the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation.

And we ask:

If so,

if the beraita speaks of one whose defect preceded his consecration,

Rabbi Shimon should have disputed this!

He should have disputed and said that concerning the sanctities of the altar they shall be buried; why did he say that they shall be redeemed?

And we answer: In the version of Reish Lakish there was a reversal in another beraita, and therefore he adjusted this beraita to that other beraita, as will be explained.

Reish Lakish

reversed the wording,

he reversed the wording of the beraita in accordance with another beraita, and he did not raise the difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan as explained above, but

this is how he raised it,

so he raised the difficulty

from another teaching,

from another beraita. And this is what it says:

They died,

the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance,

whether unblemished or possessing disqualifying defects, they shall be buried.

Rabbi Shimon says: The unblemished—

shall be buried, and those possessing disqualifying defects—

shall be redeemed.

And the beraita continues:

In what case are these words said,

that the Rabbis said that those possessing disqualifying defects shall be buried,

with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance. But with regard to the sanctities of the altar

they shall be redeemed.

And concerning the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, about which the Rabbis said that they shall be buried, Rabbi Shimon disputes and says that they shall be redeemed.

And when we examine this beraita, even after reversing its wording, we find no difference between it and the preceding beraita, except that in this beraita Rabbi Shimon did not address the sanctities of the altar at all.

And Reish Lakish raises a difficulty:

A refutation of Rabbi Yohanan from the final clause!

For it states there concerning the words of the Rabbis: “But the sanctities of the altar—they shall be redeemed.” And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who holds according to the Rabbis that the sanctities of the altar were included in standing and valuation?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? With an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset,

and therefore the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed. Whereas the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance shall be buried, as explained, for with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance there is no distinction between an unblemished animal and one possessing a disqualifying defect.

And Rabbi Yohanan continues his answer:

This too is logically indicated,

to establish the beraita as referring to an animal that possessed a disqualifying defect from the outset!

For if you say,

that if you say that it speaks

of one whose defect preceded his consecration,

and concerning them the Rabbis stated two laws: (a) that the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance shall be buried; (b) that the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed—this is difficult:

Rabbi Shimon should have disputed this,

with regard to both laws! With regard to what the Rabbis said, that the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance shall be buried, Rabbi Shimon should dispute and say that they shall be redeemed; and with regard to what they said, that the sanctities of the altar shall be redeemed, Rabbi Shimon should dispute and say that they shall be buried. Why did Rabbi Shimon remain silent and not dispute concerning the sanctities of the altar?

And granted, argues Rabbi Yohanan, if we establish it as referring to animals possessing disqualifying defects from the outset, it is well understood why Rabbi Shimon remained silent and did not dispute concerning the sanctities of the altar, since Rabbi Shimon too agrees [according to Rabbi Yohanan!] that animals possessing disqualifying defects from the outset were not included in standing and valuation—

But according to Reish Lakish, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Shimon not dispute concerning the sanctities of the altar?

And we ask:

Rather, shall we say that it is a refutation of Reish Lakish!

For it was proved from Rabbi Shimon’s silence that the Rabbis are speaking only of animals possessing disqualifying defects from the outset, and we shall infer that only concerning them did the Rabbis say that they shall be redeemed, whereas an unblemished animal that became blemished—they hold that it shall be buried, because it was included in standing and valuation. And this is difficult for Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? With one whose defect preceded his consecration,

and we shall not infer this.

And we ask:

And Rabbi Shimon should have disputed this,

and said: The sanctities of the altar shall be buried, and the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance shall be redeemed?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish could say to you:

It is indeed speaking of an unblemished animal that became blemished. And what you asked—why did Rabbi Shimon not dispute concerning the sanctities of the altar—

this too: Rabbi Shimon disputes!

Indeed, Rabbi Shimon also disputes concerning the sanctities of the altar! Rather, since this beraita explicitly discusses the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance, and the Rabbis too spoke only concerning the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance [and only in the final clause, after Rabbi Shimon’s words, is it stated that the Rabbis hold concerning the sanctities of the altar that they shall be redeemed], Rabbi Shimon stated his words concerning the words of the Rabbis with regard to the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance.

The summary of the matter: The correction of the second beraita is in one matter: In it the words of Rabbi Shimon were stated before the beraita explained the view of the Rabbis concerning the sanctities of the altar, and Rabbi Shimon explicitly disputes the words of the Rabbis concerning the sanctities designated for Temple maintenance. The beraita does not address at all Rabbi Shimon’s words concerning the sanctities of the altar.

The Gemara continues to discuss this beraita according to the words of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.

Rabbi Jeremiah said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis “the sanctities of the altar were not included in standing and valuation,” and it teaches,

and in this beraita we learned in the words of the Rabbis:

With regard to the

sanctities of the altar—