Temurah 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

A guilt-offering brought for uncertain guilt, which he brought for a possible sin for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and which was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and before its blood was sprinkled it became known to him that he had not sinned

, and it was consequently an ordinary animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

it shall be burned.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be buried .

But if it did not become known to him that he had sinned, it may be eaten like other guilt-offerings, for it is a guilt-offering, and the Torah calls it a “guilt-offering” [Leviticus 5]. It comes to atone for uncertain guilt and to protect him from suffering until it becomes known to him that he sinned and he brings a sin-offering [Keritot 26b].

Likewise,

a bird sin-offering brought for uncertain status, for example, a woman who miscarried and does not know what she miscarried: It may have been a fetus, in which case she is liable to bring the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth; or it may not have been a fetus, in which case she is not liable to bring a sin-offering. She brings a sin-offering for uncertain status. Since it is not sacrificed on the altar

, it does not matter to us if its blood is sprinkled despite the uncertainty. Nevertheless, it may not be eaten, since if she is not liable to bring a sin-offering, it is an ordinary animal that was not slaughtered but merely pinioned, and it is carrion. Therefore, it shall be burned like other disqualified consecrated offerings .

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It shall not be burned, but

he shall cast it into the channel.

The water channel [a water conduit] that passed through the Temple courtyard; he shall cast it there, and this is its burial. But a bird, which is soft and breaks apart and dissolves in water—it is sufficient to cast it into the channel. But a guilt-offering may not be cast into the channel; rather, it shall be buried.

All those that are buried—

shall not be burned,

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And all those that are burned—

shall not be buried,

lest someone dig and find them and eat them .

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wishes to be stringent with himself and burn those that are to be buried—

he may do so.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda:

It is not permitted to alter.

The reason for their dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The hair of a nazirite shall be buried, and likewise the firstborn donkey.

The Gemara discusses a contradiction with another Mishna, in which we learned that they are burned.

Tavi raised a contradiction

[a sage named Tavi raised a contradiction]

before Rav Naḥman:

We learned

in our Mishna:

The hair of a nazirite shall be buried.

And we raised a contradiction,

for we learned a Mishna in tractate Orla [chapter 3, Mishna 3]:

One who weaves a handbreadth

[a measure called “a handbreadth,” the full distance between the thumb and the forefinger, as far as one can spread them ]

from the wool of a firstborn animal

a kosher animal that is forbidden to benefit from because it is consecrated

into a garment—

the garment shall be burned.

One who weaves

the hair of a nazirite or the hair of a firstborn donkey into a sack

[from a firstborn kosher animal one can weave sheep’s wool into a garment, whereas from the hair of a nazirite or a donkey one can weave a sack]—

the sack shall be burned. Thus, the hair of a nazirite has the status of an item that must be burned?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Tavi: This is not difficult!

Here,

our Mishna, which says that it shall be buried, speaks

of an impure nazirite,

who shaves his hair in order to begin a renewed naziriteship, and his hair, which is forbidden to benefit from, shall be buried, because the Torah did not state that his hair must be burned

. And here,

that other Mishna, which says that it shall be burned, speaks

of a pure nazirite,

concerning whom the Torah stated in the passage dealing with a nazirite [Numbers 6]: “The nazirite shall shave the hair of his consecrated head at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and place it on the fire that is beneath the peace-offering.”

He said to him,

Tavi said to Rav Naḥman:

You have distinguished between one nazirite and another nazirite,

you resolved the contradiction regarding a nazirite—but

between one firstborn donkey and another firstborn donkey—

it remains difficult!

Our Mishna says that it is buried, whereas that other Mishna says that it is burned?

He fell silent,

Rav Naḥman fell silent,

and said nothing at all to him,

and he gave Tavi no answer!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Tavi:

Have you heard anything about this,

have you heard something concerning this matter? [That is, he gave him permission to present an answer in the name of his other teachers.]

He said to him,

Tavi said to Rav Naḥman:

This is what Rav Sheshet said: Here,

that other Mishna, which says that it shall be burned, speaks of when one wove the hair of a nazirite or a firstborn donkey

into a sack, and here,

our Mishna, which says that it shall be buried, speaks of

the hair

itself, which was not woven. Since, if it has already been woven into a sack, it does not decompose for a long time , there is concern that if it is buried, another person may find it without knowing that it is made from hair forbidden to benefit from. Therefore, the Sages said that both the hair of a nazirite and the hair of a firstborn donkey, if woven into a garment, must be burned, so that no one will benefit from them .

It was likewise stated,

and we likewise learned that amoraim who preceded Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed regarding the two answers concerning the hair of a nazirite [and below another answer will be given concerning a firstborn donkey]:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Here it is a sack, and here it is hair.

Rav Elazar said:

Both Mishnayot speak of a sack,

but here it is a pure nazirite, and here it is an impure nazirite.

This is explained according to even though they are among the items that are buried, as we learned in Tractate Yoma [21a], that they are cast to the east of the altar and are swallowed in their place by a miracle.

He said to him,

Tavi

Let it be nullified by the majority,

for it was taught: “The hair of a nazirite and the hair of a firstborn donkey in a sack”.

This indicates that a small amount of hair forbidden to benefit from became mixed into a large permitted garment; if so, it should be nullified by the majority of permitted material . Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rav Sheshet say that when it is in a sack it must be burned ?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said

In the form of a small bird,

the case is one in which he made the hair forbidden to benefit from into the shape of a bird [or another embroidered design] inside the sack, to beautify it. Since it is a significant entity, it is not nullified.

And we raise a difficulty: Is it possible to establish this case as one involving

a small bird?!

If it is independently recognizable—

remove it,

surely he can repair the entire garment by pulling the prohibited hair out of it. Why does the entire garment need to be burned?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Whose opinion is this,

who is the tanna of that Mishna in tractate Orla which says that it shall be burned?

It is Rabbi Yehuda, who says

in our Mishna:

If one wishes to be stringent with himself and burn those that are to be buried—

he may do so.

Therefore, the Mishna said that the garment shall be burned.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Tavi:

We raised the difficulty of “

remove it”:

We challenged that the entire garment can be repaired by pulling out the hair of the nazirite,

and you establish it according to Rabbi Yehuda?!

Did Rabbi Yehuda say that when it is possible to repair the garment, the entire garment should be burned?

He said to him

This is what I meant,

this is what I said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya:

If it is possible to remove it—

it is preferable,

and certainly he should do so in order to repair the entire garment;

but if not,

the entire garment is prohibited .

And I did not answer anything regarding the difficulty of “remove it”—

Rather, regarding the contradiction between the two Mishnayot concerning a firstborn donkey—our Mishna says that it shall be buried, whereas in that Mishna we learned that it shall be burned—Rabbi Yirmeya answered: What we learned there, that it shall be burned,

we establish,

we establish that Mishna

according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: If one wishes to be stringent with himself and burn those that are to be buried, he may do so.

Now the matter is resolved both with regard to the hair of a nazirite and with regard to a firstborn donkey, and there is no need to distinguish between a sack and hair, or between an impure nazirite and a pure one . Even with regard to hair, that Mishna said that it shall be burned according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds this way . Another version —and we raise a difficulty:

You may say that Rabbi Yehuda said

that he may burn them

when they are by themselves,

but

did he say this when they are in a mixture?

And we answer:

Teach

in that Mishna:

If he did not wish to remove—

to pull it out—

and bury it, but rather to burn it together—

he may do so.

We learned in our Mishna:

And these are the items that are burned: leavened bread on Passover.

And the Gemara explains:

An anonymous

tanna taught us

this anonymous Mishna

according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says

[Pesachim 21a]:

The removal of leavened bread is only through burning.

But the Sages disagree with him and hold that it may be destroyed through any method of removal.

We learned in our Mishna:

Those whose manner

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

The reading of the Shitta Mekubbetzet. See the Gemara in Pesachim [33b]. Rashi asked: How can one say that it is nullified by the majority? We learned in Tractate Niddah [61b]: If a garment in which prohibited mixtures of wool and linen became lost, one may not sell it to a gentile, lest the gentile resell it to a Jew. Why is the prohibited mixture not nullified by the majority of the garment, as stated here? Rashi wrote that this is not a question at all. In the case of wool and linen, the entire prohibition is itself the mixture of a wool thread with linen, so the principle of nullification does not apply. That is, when a thread is prohibited for benefit before the mixture—such as nazirite hair woven into a large garment and no longer distinguishable—it is possible to say that it is nullified by the majority, like any other mixture of prohibited and permitted substances. But a wool thread is not prohibited in itself; it is prohibited because of the mixture. The mixture itself prohibits the entire garment containing both wool and linen, even if there is only a small amount of wool in a large amount of linen. Thus, how could one say that it is nullified by the majority? See

And the Gemara explains:

How so,

which item is customarily burned and which is customarily buried?

The tanna

taught a beraita:

Edibles—

foods—

are burned; liquids are buried.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may light

with bread and oil of teruma.

The reading of the Shitta Mekubbetzet. See the Gemara in Pesachim [33b]. See the Gemara in Pesachim [33b].

And we raise a difficulty:

But let us be concerned,

why were the Sages not concerned

perhaps,

if he leaves them until he needs them for burning or lighting,

a mishap will occur,

and he will come to eat them?

And we answer:

Rava said: Bread—

he throws it among the wood; oil—

he places it in a disgusting vessel,

and through this he will not come to eat them.

We learned in our Mishna:

A guilt-offering for uncertain guilt shall be burned.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be buried.

A bird sin-offering brought for uncertain status shall be burned.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He shall cast it into the channel.

The Sages taught

A guilt-offering for uncertain guilt, a bird sin-offering brought for uncertain status, and ordinary animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

Rabbi Yehuda says: They shall be buried, and Rabbi Shimon says: They shall be burned.

The reading of the Shitta Mekubbetzet. See the Gemara in Pesachim [33b].

The Gemara cites another beraita, in which it is stated that for a bird sin-offering brought for uncertain status, it is sufficient to cast it into the channel, as our Mishna says. It explains what is to be done with that bird sin-offering.

It was taught: How

does one cast a bird sin-offering brought for uncertain status into the channel?

He cuts it limb by limb and throws it into the channel, and it rolls along until it reaches the Kidron Stream, to which the water of the channel in the Temple courtyard flowed.

We learned in our Mishna:

All those that are buried shall not be burned, and all those that are burned shall not be buried.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wishes to be stringent with himself and burn those that are to be buried, he may do so.

They said to him: It is not permitted to alter.

And we clarify:

What is the reason,

why did the Sages say that he may not be stringent and burn those that are to be buried?

Because with regard to those that are buried—

their ashes are prohibited, whereas with regard to those that are burned—

their ashes are permitted.

It follows that if he burns it, he may come to treat lightly the use of the prohibited ashes. Therefore , the Sages said to him, “It is not permitted to alter,” because this results in a leniency through which people may come to benefit from their ashes.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it true that the ashes of those that are buried are permitted?!

But

it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

Menstrual blood,

which imparts ritual impurity even when dry,

and the flesh of a corpse, which

has dried out

and crumbled—

are pure,

and the flesh of a corpse likewise does not impart impurity [when there is not the measure of a full ladleful of dust from decomposition].

Is it not

that we should interpret the beraita as saying that they are

pure

from corpse impurity,

and

also

permitted

to benefit from—even though a corpse is prohibited to benefit from and is among those that are buried? It follows that the ashes of not all those that are buried are prohibited?

And we answer:

No! They are pure

from corpse impurity,

but prohibited

to benefit from their ashes!

Rav Pinḥas raised an objection,

for we learned a beraita:

With regard to a bird burnt-offering whose blood was fully expressed,

on the wall of the altar in accordance with its mitzva—

its crop

[the crop]

and its feathers,

which are not sacrificed with it,

have left the status of misuse of consecrated property,

and one who benefits from them has not committed misuse. [But one who benefits from its flesh has committed misuse, since it is a burnt-offering and its mitzva has not yet been completed until the flesh is burned on the altar—Rabbeinu Gershom.] This is even though they are among those that are buried, as we learned in tractate Yoma [21a], that they are cast on the eastern side of the altar and are swallowed in their place through a miracle.

What of them,

should we not interpret the beraita as saying that they

have left the status of misuse of consecrated property, and

also

are permitted

to benefit from—even initially, if one dug and removed them from their place? It follows that the ashes of not all those that are buried are prohibited?

And we answer:

No! They have left the status of me'ila,

since their mitzva has been performed,

but are forbidden

to derive benefit from their ashes!

And we challenge this:

But

if so,

are the ashes of burned consecrated property permitted?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

All those that are burned,

such as leavened bread, impure teruma, orla, and diverse kinds in a vineyard,

their ashes are permitted,

for example, for washing garments,

except for the ashes

of an asheira.

And the beraita continues:

But the ashes of consecrated property,

meaning offerings that were disqualified in the Temple courtyard, as explained in the Mishna,

are forever forbidden.

The one who raises the objection explains the beraita: It would seemingly have been difficult why it did not state, “Except for the ashes of an asheira and the ashes of consecrated property,” mentioning the two together, since the law governing both is the same. Why did it mention them separately: “Except for the ashes of an asheira,” and “the ashes of consecrated property are forever forbidden”?

And he explains:

It is only that he did not

combine them and

teach them together,

for the tanna did not combine them as subject to one law,

because

their laws are not identical.

For an asheira,

is not forbidden “forever,” since

it can be nullified by a gentile,

if a gentile nullifies it, in accordance with the law of an object of idolatry that can be nullified by a gentile; whereas

consecrated property

can never be nullified.

This is the explanation of the beraita. The one who raises the objection asks:

In any event, it teaches,

for at least we have learned,

“ The ashes of consecrated property are forever forbidden,”

but why? After all, “all those that are burned—their ashes are permitted”!

The Gemara answers that one must distinguish between one burning and another: sometimes their ashes are forbidden and sometimes they are permitted. How so? Any consecrated property that one used or from which one derived benefit becomes unconsecrated. When does this apply? When the beneficiary committed me'ila and thereby became liable to pay the principal and an additional fifth to the consecrated property. But if the beneficiary or user did not commit me'ila, in the circumstances explained in tractate Me'ila, the consecrated property does not become unconsecrated.

Now, if one kindles consecrated wood and commits me'ila, the ashes become unconsecrated, and their ashes are permitted. This is what we learned in our Mishna: “All those that are burned—their ashes are permitted,” even in the case of consecrated property. And likewise offerings that were disqualified in the Temple courtyard, whose mitzva is to burn them: although they did not become unconsecrated through me'ila, nevertheless, since they were disqualified, their sanctity is weakened, and they have also become ashes, their ashes are permitted.

But when the beraita teaches that the ashes of consecrated property are forbidden, it is not referring to disqualified offerings, but to consecrated wood. Nor is it referring to a case in which the wood became unconsecrated because someone committed me'ila with it. Rather, it became ashes on its own, as will be explained. Since no one committed me'ila with it, it remained in its state of sanctity and did not become unconsecrated. Therefore, its ashes are forbidden.

Rabbi bar Ḥama said: For example, when a fire fell upon consecrated wood on its own, since

there was no person to commit me'ila,

since there was no one who committed me'ila

so that

through his me'ila

its ashes would become unconsecrated.

Therefore, the beraita states that one commits me'ila with its ashes.

Rav Shemaya said: When this beraita was taught,

that its ashes are forbidden, in what case did the beraita state this?

With the measure of a full handful

of the terumat hadeshen,

which is the measure of ashes that the priest removes each morning, as explained in tractate Yoma [24a]. Regarding these ashes,

it is taught that they are forever forbidden,

meaning that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them even after they have become ashes—

As it was taught:

as we learned in a beraita, the Torah states in the passage concerning the terumat hadeshen [Leviticus 6], “And he shall place it beside the altar,” and we expound: “

And he shall place it” means

gently.

And we further expound: “

And he shall place it” means

all of it,

the entire handful. And we further expound: “

And he shall place it” means

that he shall not scatter it. Regarding these ashes, which require burial and from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, the beraita states that their ashes are forbidden; but other ashes of consecrated property are permitted.

and concerning these ashes, which require concealment and are forbidden for benefit, the beraita said that their ashes are forbidden; but other ashes of consecrated property are permitted.

We have completed the seventh chapter, “There Is in the Sacrificial Offerings”; and the tractate Temura is concluded.