Temurah 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

Then what do I establish “

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

with reference to animals with permanent defects that were redeemed.

And the beraita continues:

I might

have said that

they may be redeemed

even

for a temporary defect?

The verse states: “

from which they may not bring

an offering,” and we derive:

that which cannot be offered at all

because it has a permanent defect may be redeemed —

this one is excluded,

an animal with a temporary defect,

which cannot be offered today but can be offered tomorrow,

and therefore may not be redeemed.

And the Gemara concludes: Regarding this animal, which is consecrated for the altar,

the Merciful One said, “

one must have it stand and be valuated,”

as it is stated: “He shall have the animal stand, and the koen shall valuate it.” But the beraita was not discussing an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, whether it had a permanent defect or a temporary defect—for with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, none of this makes a practical difference, and they may be redeemed even without any defect at all—and it is therefore proven that this beraita maintains that “items consecrated for the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated.”

And this beraita, which is taught in the Sifra [the Book of Torat Kohanim], is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as “an unattributed Sifra is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.” He is the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, who is the first tanna of our Mishna. And once we have proven that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that items consecrated for the altar require having them stand and be valuated, and this is combined with the implication of the Mishna that the first tanna certainly spoke of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as explained above from Rabbi Shimon’s response, it has been proven that the first tanna maintains, both with regard to items consecrated for the altar and with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, that they were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated—in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yohanan!

Alternatively

From the fact that it teaches,

from what the beraita taught, “

Behold, an impure animal is mentioned”—

by inference, they are equivalent,

as the beraita understood them to be one matter and equal with regard to their laws of redemption, and the tanna of the beraita

maintains: The consecrated animals of the altar are written, and the consecrated items for Temple maintenance are written ,

and concerning both of them it is written, “

he shall have it stand and valuate it,”

as Rabbi Yohanan explains according to the Rabbis.

The Gemara expounds the verse according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Resh Lakish, in accordance with the Rabbis.

Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav

What is the reason of Resh Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, items consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated, whereas consecrated animals of the altar were not included in that requirement?

As the verse states, “

And the koen shall valuate it, whether good or bad,”

which indicates that it is valuated as it is, whether it is “good”—that is, unblemished—or “bad”—that is, blemished—and both are equal. And we derive:

What is something for which there is no distinction between good and bad?

You must say: Items consecrated for Temple maintenance. And concerning them the Torah said, “He shall have it stand and valuate it.”

And the verse states, “

it”—

to exclude consecrated animals of the altar,

which are not included in the requirement of “having it stand and valuating it.”

According to this exposition, the two verses [11–12] are divided into two parts. The statement, “And as for any impure animal from which they may not bring an offering to the Lord,” refers to consecrated animals of the altar, as is demonstrated by the words, “from which they may not bring an offering.” And the subsequent statement, “He shall have the animal stand before the koen, and the koen shall valuate it, whether good or bad,” refers to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and the Torah teaches us that they require having them stand and be valuated.

And we challenge this:

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who maintains that, according to the Rabbis, the Torah’s statement, “He shall have it stand and valuate it,” refers both to what is stated, “from which they may not bring an offering,” meaning consecrated animals of the altar, and to what is stated, “whether good or bad,” meaning items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and that in both cases the Torah says they require having them stand and be valuated—this is difficult: What does the word

“it”,

exclude?

And we answer:

It excludes an animal that was blemished from the outset

among consecrated animals of the altar, which are not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated.

And Resh Lakish does not require an exclusion for an animal that was blemished from the outset, since according to the Rabbis he maintains that consecrated animals of the altar are not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated even when they were initially unblemished and subsequently became blemished .

And the Gemara discusses:

But according to the tanna of the school of

in the study hall of]

Levi, who says that even an animal blemished from the outset was

included in the requirement of having it stand and be valuated—

For Levi taught: Everything was included in the requirement of having it stand and be valuated, even an animal blemished 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”;

even

if one consecrated

an animal

for the altar,

and even birds,

such as geese and chickens, which are entirely unfit for the altar—they shall be buried and may not be redeemed, because they require having them stand and be valuated—this is difficult:

What does the word “

it”

exclude?

And we conclude: Indeed! “

It”

according to the tanna of the school of Levi—

is difficult!

The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who says that consecrated animals of the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated, whereas items consecrated for Temple maintenance were not?

As the verse states

there, verse 12, “

And the koen shall valuate it, whether good or bad,”

and we derive:

What is something that is distinguished between good and bad,

meaning between an unblemished and a blemished animal?

You must say: This is consecrated animals of the altar.

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 states, “

it,”

to exclude

consecrated

items for Temple maintenance .

And we challenge this:

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;

the Torah should have written that expression, which would then have indicated something in which there is a distinction, as Rabbi Shimon maintains. Yet the Torah wrote “between” and “between,” whose implication is that both good and bad are alike, as with items consecrated for Temple maintenance?

And we conclude: Indeed!

It is difficult!

The Gemara cites a beraita to challenge both Rabbi Yohanan’s statement and Resh Lakish’s statement.

It raises an objection,

from what we learned in a beraita:

If they died,

consecrated animals of the altar when they were

unblemished—

shall be buried. And those with defects—

shall be redeemed.

One might have thought that this beraita follows the view of the Rabbis, according to whom consecrated animals of the altar were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated, in accordance with Resh Lakish, and therefore animals with defects may be redeemed. Nevertheless, if they are unblemished, since they were actually fit to be offered—because of their great sanctity—the Sages were stringent with regard to them and ruled that they may not be redeemed but must be buried .

And the beraita continues:

When are these matters stated,

that animals with defects may be redeemed?

With regard to consecrated animals of the altar,

since they were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated.

But with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance—

both unblemished animals and animals with defects shall be buried,

because they were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated.

This concludes the first part of the beraita, whose implication, according to the initial assumption, is in accordance with Resh Lakish’s view of the Rabbis.

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi Shimon says: Both consecrated animals of the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, when unblemished—

shall be buried; those with defects—

shall be redeemed.

Now, concerning his statement that “unblemished animals shall be buried,” it has already been explained that this is because of their great sanctity [even in the case of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as will be explained later in the sugya]. But his statement that “animals with defects shall be redeemed,” even in the case of consecrated animals of the altar, is certainly difficult! For according to all opinions, whether Rabbi Yohanan’s or Resh Lakish’s, Rabbi Shimon maintains that consecrated animals of the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated, as will be explained later in the sugya.

And Resh Lakish challenges this:

A refutation of Rabbi Yohanan from the first part!

For it states there, according to the Rabbis, that consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed, whereas Rabbi Yohanan maintains that, according to the Rabbis, they must be buried?

And we answer:

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

what does this beraita discuss?

With an animal blemished from the outset!

As explained above, everyone agrees that an animal blemished from the outset may be redeemed without having it stand and be valuated. When are these matters stated? With regard to consecrated animals of the altar. But with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, there is no distinction between an unblemished animal and one with a defect, and in either case it must be buried, since it requires having it stand and be valuated.

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

it is also logically compelling,

as the words of the beraita necessarily indicate that it must be understood as referring to an animal blemished from the outset!

For if you should say,

if you establish it as referring to one

whose consecration preceded its defect,

and you wish to prove that, according to the Rabbis, consecrated animals of the altar were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated, this is difficult:

Rabbi Shimon should disagree with this.

Why does he say that animals with defects among the consecrated animals of the altar should be redeemed? Rabbi Shimon certainly maintains that consecrated animals of the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated!

Rather, is it not, learn from this

that the case is

an animal blemished from the outset,

and therefore Rabbi Shimon concedes that animals blemished from the outset among consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed [whereas with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, Rabbi Shimon certainly maintains that they may be redeemed, since they were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated].

The entire beraita is thus resolved according to Rabbi Yohanan, when it is established as referring to an animal blemished from the outset.

Now the challenge turns against Resh Lakish:

Rather, shall we say that this is a refutation of Resh Lakish?

For from Rabbi Shimon’s statement it was necessary to explain that the beraita specifically concerns an animal blemished from the outset, and we infer: It is only because it was blemished from the outset that the Rabbis said, with regard to consecrated animals of the altar, that it may be redeemed; whereas if it was initially unblemished and subsequently became blemished, the Rabbis maintain that it must be buried! This is difficult for Resh Lakish, who maintains that, according to the Rabbis, consecrated animals of the altar were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated?

And we answer:

Resh Lakish establishes it,

he establishes the words of the Rabbis in the first part,

as referring to an animal whose consecration preceded its defect,

and even so the Rabbis maintain that it may be redeemed, because they hold that consecrated animals of the altar were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the beraita is speaking of an animal whose consecration preceded its defect,

Rabbi Shimon should disagree with this!

He should have disagreed and said that consecrated animals of the altar must be buried; why, then, did he say that they may be redeemed?

And we answer: In another beraita, Resh Lakish had an inverted version, and therefore he reconciled this beraita with that other beraita, as will be explained.

Resh Lakish

reversed the wording,

he reversed the wording of the beraita to conform to another beraita. He did not challenge Rabbi Yohanan as explained above; rather,

this is how he raised the challenge,

he raised it

from another teaching,

from another beraita. And this is what it says:

If they died,

items consecrated for Temple maintenance,

whether unblemished or blemished, shall be buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Unblemished animals—

shall be buried, and those with defects—

shall be redeemed.

And the beraita continues:

When are these matters stated,

that the Rabbis said that animals with defects shall be buried?

With regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. But with regard to consecrated animals of the altar

they may be redeemed.

And Rabbi Shimon disputes the Rabbis’ ruling that items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, and says that they may be redeemed.

And when we analyze this beraita, even after its wording has been reversed, we find no difference between it and the preceding beraita, except that in this beraita Rabbi Shimon makes no reference at all to consecrated animals of the altar.

And Resh Lakish challenges this:

A refutation of Rabbi Yohanan from the latter part!

For it states, regarding the Rabbis’ words, “But consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed.” This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who maintains that, according to the Rabbis, consecrated animals of the altar were included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? With an animal blemished from the outset,

and therefore consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed. But items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, as it has been explained that with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance there is no distinction between an unblemished animal and one with a defect.

And Rabbi Yohanan continues with his answer:

It is also logically compelling,

to establish the beraita as referring to an animal blemished from the outset!

For if you should say,

that it is speaking

of one whose consecration preceded its defect,

and the Rabbis stated two laws concerning them: 1. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried; 2. consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed—this is difficult:

Rabbi Shimon should disagree with this,

with both laws! Regarding what the Rabbis said, that items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be buried, Rabbi Shimon should disagree and say that they may be redeemed; and regarding what they said, that consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed, Rabbi Shimon should disagree and say that they must be buried. Why, then, was Rabbi Shimon silent and did not disagree concerning consecrated animals of the altar?

Rabbi Yohanan argues that it is understandable if we establish the case as involving animals blemished from the outset: It is entirely clear why Rabbi Shimon was silent and did not disagree concerning consecrated animals of the altar, since Rabbi Shimon too concedes [according to Rabbi Yohanan!] that animals blemished from the outset were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated—

but according to Resh Lakish, this is difficult: Why did Rabbi Shimon not disagree concerning consecrated animals of the altar?

And we challenge this:

Rather, shall we say that this is a refutation of Resh Lakish!

For it has been demonstrated from Rabbi Shimon’s silence that the Rabbis are speaking only of animals blemished from the outset, and we infer that it was only with regard to such animals that the Rabbis said they may be redeemed, whereas if an animal was initially unblemished and subsequently became blemished, they maintain that it must be buried because it was included in the requirement of having it stand and be valuated. This is difficult for Resh Lakish?

And we answer:

Resh Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? With an animal whose consecration preceded its defect,

and we may not draw that inference.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Shimon should disagree with this,

and say: Consecrated animals of the altar must be buried, and items consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed?

And we answer:

Resh Lakish could say to you:

The case is actually one in which the animal was initially unblemished and subsequently became blemished. And regarding your question, why did Rabbi Shimon not disagree concerning consecrated animals of the altar:

Rabbi Shimon indeed disagrees as well!

Indeed, Rabbi Shimon also disputes the ruling concerning consecrated animals of the altar! Rather, since this beraita explicitly discusses items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and the Rabbis too spoke only about items consecrated for Temple maintenance [and only in the latter part, after Rabbi Shimon’s statement, does it say that the Rabbis maintain that consecrated animals of the altar may be redeemed], Rabbi Shimon stated his words in opposition to the Rabbis’ words concerning items consecrated for Temple maintenance.

The summary is as follows: The correction to the second beraita concerns one matter: In it, Rabbi Shimon’s statement appears before the beraita explains the Rabbis’ position regarding consecrated animals of the altar, and Rabbi Shimon explicitly disputes the Rabbis’ statement concerning items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The beraita makes no reference at all to Rabbi Shimon’s position concerning consecrated animals of the altar.

The Gemara continues to discuss this beraita according to the positions of Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Resh Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, “consecrated animals of the altar were not included in the requirement of having them stand and be valuated,” and it teaches,

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

With regard to consecrated

animals of the altar—