Temurah 33b — the Talmud in English

Blemished animals shall be redeemed, and we establish it,

and Resh Lakish established it

as referring to a case where they consecrated them before their blemish occurred—

does

this prove

from the fact that it is permitted to redeem them, that the Rabbis maintain

“One redeems consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs”?!

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, who established it as referring to a case where their blemish preceded their consecration, it is permitted to redeem them for the purpose of feeding them to dogs, since bodily sanctity never descended upon them. But according to Resh Lakish, would they redeem it in order to feed it to dogs?!

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, because

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he transgressed and slaughtered them,

for human consumption! Before he redeemed them. Now, according to the Rabbis [according to Resh Lakish], who maintain that sacrificial consecrated property was not included in standing and valuation, it is still permitted to redeem them for human consumption; but according to Rabbi Shimon—they shall be buried, because they are not permitted to redeem them, since standing and valuation is required.

As it was taught

that the Sages disputed the matter:

All consecrated animals,

sacrificial consecrated animals,

in which a blemish occurred

and he went and

slaughtered them, Rabbi Meir says: They shall be buried,

because he maintains, like Rabbi Shimon, that they were included in standing and valuation

. And the Sages say: They shall be redeemed,

because they were not included in standing and valuation.

Addition of other books:

And we raise an objection:

From

the fact that

Rabbi Meir

maintains

like Rabbi Shimon,

that sacrificial consecrated animals were included in standing and valuation—

the Rabbis here,

maintain

like the Rabbis there,

that they were not included in standing and valuation. And it is difficult:

Let us say that this constitutes a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan,

who maintains that, according to the Rabbis, sacrificial consecrated animals were included in standing and valuation?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you:

No!

The Rabbis there,

the disputants of Rabbi Meir,

alone,

indeed maintain that sacrificial consecrated animals were not included in standing and valuation,

whereas

if

the Rabbis here,

in our Mishna,

alone,

maintain that sacrificial consecrated animals were included in standing and valuation.

The Gemara continues to clarify the beraita.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says: Consecrated property for Temple maintenance was not included in standing and valuation—

why are unblemished animals to be buried,

since they do not require standing and valuation?

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Because they are fit for sacrifice,

the Sages applied to them an elevated status, like unblemished sacrificial animals.

And why are they fit for sacrifice? Did he not consecrate them only for Temple maintenance?

As

in

that which was taught: One who applies unblemished animals to Temple maintenance—

when they are redeemed, they are redeemed only for the altar,

and they shall be sold for the needs of sacrifices, because

everything fit for the altar,

which he consecrated for Temple maintenance,

never leaves the domain of the altar.

The Gemara brings a Mishna in tractates Bekhorot and Hullin to challenge Rabbi Yohanan.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye—and some say

there are those who transmitted this report as having been said by Rav Pappa

to Rava

According to Rabbi Yohanan, who establishes it

the aforementioned beraita

as referring to an animal blemished from the outset,

and maintains

that all

the world,

both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon,

agree with this position: An animal blemished from the outset does not

belong to the category of standing and valuation—

Another formulation:

According to Rabbi Yohanan, who says “it”—

to exclude an animal blemished from the outset, which does not require standing and valuation—

In the Shita Mekubetzet.

It is difficult:

And

if

not

an animal blemished from the outset does not belong to the category of standing and valuation?!

But we learned,

“All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration,”

and he consecrated them to be redeemed and to bring a sacrifice from their proceeds upon the altar—they are like one who consecrates wood and stones for their value, and they do not possess bodily sanctity,

and

if

they were redeemed,

they are entirely non-sacred with regard to these laws:

If they are females and give birth—their offspring

are obligated in the firstborn requirement,

but as long as they have not been redeemed, they are exempt from the firstborn requirement. [Even though their sanctity is only sanctity of monetary value, because this Mishna maintains that “sanctity of monetary value defers the firstborn requirement”].

And

they are obligated

in the gifts,

the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, to be given to a priest as entirely non-sacred animals.

And they go out to non-sacred status

entirely—

to be shorn and to be worked,

like entirely non-sacred animals. And not like consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish that occurred after their consecration, which are forbidden to be shorn or worked.

Their offspring and their milk—

are permitted,

like entirely non-sacred animals; their offspring are permitted even if they became pregnant before their redemption and gave birth after their redemption.

All these permissions apply after their redemption.

Since their blemish preceded their consecration, they are entirely like non-sacred animals with regard to several laws even before their redemption. These are:

And one who slaughters them outside—

is exempt.

And one does not make a substitution.

And if they die, they shall be redeemed.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

From

this

that said, “And if they die, they shall be redeemed”—

it is the statement of Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that consecrated property for Temple maintenance was not included in standing and valuation, and therefore they shall be redeemed, since their sanctity is merely like that of property consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they were consecrated while blemished—

But

the Sages say: Even an animal blemished from the outset was included in standing and valuation.

Rav Pappa understood the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav as meaning that he referred to the Rabbis of our Mishna, the disputants of Rabbi Shimon, who maintain that consecrated property for Temple maintenance was also included in standing and valuation. Therefore, with regard to these consecrated animals of the Mishna, whose blemish preceded their consecration, even if their sanctity is like that of property consecrated for Temple maintenance, they require standing and valuation and are not redeemed. Therefore Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that the Mishna is not according to the Rabbis—

And this is difficult according to Rabbi Yohanan, who maintains that according to the Rabbis, when their blemish preceded their consecration, they are not included in standing and valuation: Why did Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav need to establish this Mishna as not being according to the Rabbis?

Granted, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that according to the Rabbis consecrated property for Temple maintenance was included in standing and valuation, it is not difficult, because it is possible that if we define them as consecrated property for Temple maintenance because their blemish preceded their consecration, nevertheless they require standing and valuation, and if they die they shall be buried; it follows that the Mishna is not according to the view of the Rabbis. But according to Rabbi Yohanan, it is difficult: Why is it impossible to establish the Mishna according to the Rabbis? Do the Rabbis not concede with regard to animals blemished from the outset?

He said to him,

Abaye or Rava to Rav Pappa: Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav did not intend the Rabbis of our Mishna, but rather,

which Sages

did he intend?

The tanna of the school of Levi,

who said [above, page 33a], “All were included in standing and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset.”

And Rav Pappa raises an objection:

If so,

since the Rabbis of our Mishna likewise maintain that animals blemished from the outset shall be redeemed, why did Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav say

“This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon,”

so that one might err and understand that it is an individual opinion—and that only Rabbi Shimon said this,

and no more,

and even a tanna among his disputants does not maintain this? The Rabbis too maintain this! He should have needed to say:

“This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his disputant,”

it was necessary for him to say,

meaning, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav should have said, “This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon together with his disputants,” since all agree with regard to an animal blemished from the outset?

He said to him,

Abaye or Rava to Rav Pappa:

This

reason

that it was not taught in this manner is because Rav agrees with Resh Lakish, who says: According to the Rabbis—

consecrated property for Temple maintenance was included in standing and valuation; sacrificial consecrated property was not.

And in the latter clause of that Mishna we learned: “And all whose consecration preceded their blemish … and if they die, they shall be buried.”

And the first clause teaches, ‘And if they die, they shall be redeemed,’ while the latter clause teaches, ‘If they die, they shall be buried.’

Now, although the first clause can also be established according to the Rabbis, the disputants of Rabbi Shimon—that is, we shall explain [not according to the reasoning of the questioner!] that the law of these consecrated animals is like that of sacrificial consecrated animals, since they were consecrated to be sold for sacrifices; and therefore, according to Rav, who agrees with Resh Lakish, even the Rabbis maintain that they shall be redeemed, in accordance with their position that sacrificial consecrated animals were not included in standing and valuation—

But the latter clause cannot be established according to the Rabbis, since the latter clause deals with a case where their consecration preceded their blemish, and certainly they are sacrificial consecrated animals; and according to the Rabbis they should be redeemed, in accordance with their position, according to Rav who agrees with Resh Lakish, that sacrificial consecrated animals were not included in standing and valuation—

Therefore Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav said that this Mishna, both its first clause and its latter clause, was taught according to Rabbi Shimon, since it taught in the latter clause, “And if they die, they shall be buried.” But in the first clause they shall be redeemed, since they were consecrated while blemished, and Rabbi Shimon concedes that they were not included in standing and valuation.

And if you wish, say

that we shall explain:

Rav

indeed

agrees with Rabbi Yohanan,

that according to the Rabbis both sacrificial consecrated animals and consecrated property for Temple maintenance were included in standing and valuation, except for an animal blemished from the outset. Indeed, it is possible to establish the Mishna, both its first clause and its latter clause, according to both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis.

And

what

is difficult for you: “It was necessary for him to say, ‘This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his disputant’”—

we shall answer:

Teach ,

teach Rav’s words:

“This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his disputant.”

And the main point of Rav’s words is to say that this Mishna is not according to Levi, who says that even an animal blemished from the outset was included in standing and valuation.

Mishna:

In the previous Mishna we learned that consecrated animals that were not redeemed during their lifetime shall not be redeemed after their death, because standing and valuation is required; rather, they shall be buried, since they are forbidden in benefit. Our Mishna lists other things forbidden in benefit: these are subject to burial, and these are subject to burning .

And these are the ones that are buried: Consecrated animals that miscarried — shall be buried

the miscarried fetuses.

If she miscarried a placenta—

it shall be buried,

because there is no placenta without a fetus, and certainly the fetus dissolved.

And the ox that is stoned, which is forbidden in benefit, as it is stated [Exodus 21], “And he shall not eat its flesh,” or because it is stated [there], “And the owner of the ox is clear.”

it must be buried,

because there is no placenta without a fetus, and the fetus certainly dissolved.

And the heifer whose neck is broken,

which is forbidden in benefit, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 21], “And they shall break its neck there,” and we expound: There shall be its burial there .

And the birds of one with leprosy, which are slaughtered over the water. [But the bird that is sent away over the open field is not forbidden in benefit because the Torah did not say “send” so that a mishap would result from them, should people find them and benefit from them].

which is forbidden to benefit from, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 21]: “And they shall break its neck there,” and we interpret it: “There shall be its burial.”

And the hair of a nazirite,

as will be explained in the Gemara. And the firstborn donkey, whose neck they broke; and this is learned from the heifer whose neck is broken, that its body and hair are forbidden in benefit.

And meat with milk,

a piece of meat cooked with milk, which is forbidden in benefit.

And non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

which are forbidden in benefit.

Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

shall be burned .

And likewise a wild animal

which is unfit for sacrifice,

that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

Because there is concern that when people see them buried, and since the reason for the disqualification of the non-sacred animals is not recognizable—whether because they are non-sacred animals or because they are consecrated animals that were disqualified—they will come to say that consecrated animals that were disqualified, such as animals that became impure or sacrificial leftovers, shall likewise be buried. And consecrated animals that were disqualified must be burned, as explained below . Therefore they instituted that even non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned.

Alternatively: Even a wild animal, for which one need not decree lest people confuse it with other disqualified consecrated animals, since it is known to everyone that a wild animal is unfit for any sacrifice—even so, it shall be burned . And these are the ones that are burned Leaven on Passover— shall be burned, and the Gemara explains that our Mishna was taught according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains, “The removal of leaven is only by burning,” and this is learned from sacrificial leftovers [Pesahim 27b].

And likewise a wild animal

that is unfit to be offered,

that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

This is because there is concern that when people see them being buried—and since the reason for the disqualification of the non-sacred animals is not apparent, whether because they are non-sacred or because they are consecrated animals that became disqualified—they will say that even consecrated animals that became disqualified, such as those that became impure or were left overnight, must be buried. Consecrated animals that became disqualified must be burned, as will be explained below . Therefore, the Sages enacted that even non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned.

Alternatively: even a wild animal, although there is no need to enact a decree lest people confuse it with other disqualified consecrated animals, since everyone knows that a wild animal is unfit for any offering—even so, it must be burned .

And impure teruma,

which likewise shall be burned , but nevertheless it is permitted to benefit from its burning, as explained below in the Mishna.

Leaven on Passover—

must be burned,

and the Gemara explains that our Mishna was taught according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains: “The only way to dispose of leaven is by burning,” and this is derived from the law of sacrificial remains [Pesahim 27b].

And impure teruma,

must also be burned , although it is nevertheless permitted to benefit from the burning of these items, as will be explained below in the Mishna.

And the vineyard mixtures and orla ,

as it is stated concerning vineyard mixtures [Deuteronomy 22], “lest it become sanctified,” and we expound [Kiddushin 56b], “lest fire be kindled,” for which they are liable to burning. And orla is learned from vineyard mixtures .

Orla and vineyard mixtures —

those whose manner is to be burned ,

such as foods—

shall be burned, and those whose manner is to be buried,

that is, whose manner is not to be burned, such as liquids—

shall be buried.

And they light with bread and oil of teruma,

also when impure. And it is permitted to derive benefit from them at the time of their burning, such as from the light of the oil and from the bread used in place of wood. As it is stated in the section of the gifts of the kohanim [Numbers 18], “And I, behold, have given you the charge of My terumot.” And we expound [Shabbat 25a]: Scripture speaks of two charges, one pure teruma and one impure teruma, and the Torah said concerning both of them, “to you,” permitting the kohen to derive benefit from it, to light the lamp with it and to fuel bread beneath his cooked dish.

All the consecrated offerings

that became disqualified, such as

those that were slaughtered

with the intention of being

outside their time and outside their place,

and likewise if they became impure or were left over—

these shall be burned,

as it is stated concerning a disqualified sin-offering [Leviticus 6], “In the holy place... in fire it shall be burned,” and we expound [Pesachim 24a], “Everything that is in the holy place”—that is, every disqualification that occurred in the holy place—“shall be burned in fire.”