Temurah 34a — the Talmud in English

A guilt-offering brought in a case of uncertainty—

which he brought because of a possible sin for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering; it was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and before its blood was sprinkled, he learned that he had not sinned —and it turns out that it is an unconsecrated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

must be burned.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must be buried

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

Likewise,

a bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty

—for example, a woman who miscarried and does not know what she miscarried: perhaps it was a fetus, in which case she is liable to bring the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth; or perhaps it was not a fetus, in which case she is not liable to bring a sin-offering—brings a sin-offering in a case of uncertainty. Since it is not burned on the altar , it does not matter to us if its blood is sprinkled despite the uncertainty. Nevertheless, it may not be eaten, because if she is not liable to bring a sin-offering, it is an unconsecrated bird that was not slaughtered but pinioned, and it is an animal carcass. Therefore, it must be burned like other invalid consecrated offerings .

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It should not be burned; rather,

he should cast it into the channel.

The water channel that passed through the Temple courtyard: he should cast it there, and this is its burial . A bird is soft and disintegrates and dissolves in water, so it is sufficient to cast it into the channel. But a guilt-offering should not be cast into the channel; rather, it must be buried.

All items that are normally buried—

may not be burned

, and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And all items that are normally burned—

may not be buried

, lest someone dig them up and find them and eat them

. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wishes to impose stringency upon himself and burn items that are normally buried—

he is permitted.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda:

It is not permitted to alter the prescribed manner

. The Gemara will explain the reason for their dispute.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: A nazirite’s hair must be buried, and likewise the firstborn donkey.

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

Tavi raised

a contradiction—he was a Sage named Tavi—

before Rav Naḥman:

We learned

, in our Mishna:

A nazirite’s hair must be buried.

And we raise a contradiction from it

: We learned in a Mishna in Tractate Orlah [chapter 3, Mishna 3]:

One who weaves the measure of a handbreadth

—a measure called “the full stretch,” equal to the distance a person can stretch between his thumb and forefinger

from the wool of a firstborn animal

, a ritually pure animal that is prohibited for benefit because it is consecrated,

into a garment—

the garment must be burned.

One who weaves

from a nazirite’s hair or from the firstborn donkey’s hair into a sack

—wool from a ritually pure firstborn animal can be woven into a garment, whereas a nazirite’s hair and donkey hair can be woven into a sack—

the sack must be burned. Does this not show that a nazirite’s hair must be burned?

Значит, волосы назира имеют статус подлежащих сжиганию?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Tavi: It is not difficult!

Here—

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

an impure nazirite

, who shaves his hair in order to begin a new period of naziriteship. His hair, which is prohibited for benefit, must be buried, because the Torah does not state that nazirite hair must be burned

.

And here—the other Mishna, which says that it must be burned, speaks of

a pure nazirite

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

He said to him,

Tavi said to Rav Naḥman:

You distinguished between one nazirite and another nazirite

—you resolved the contradiction concerning a nazirite, but

between one firstborn donkey and another firstborn donkey—

it is difficult!

Our Mishna says that it is buried, whereas that Mishna says that it is burned.

He was silent

, Rav Naḥman was silent,

and he did not say anything to him

—he said nothing at all to Tavi.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Tavi:

Have you heard anything about this

—that is, he allowed him to present an answer in the name of other teachers?

He said to him,

Tavi said to Rav Naḥman:

This is what Rav Sheshet said: Here—the other Mishna, which says that it must be burned, speaks of when they wove the nazirite’s hair and the firstborn donkey’s hair

into a sack, and here—our Mishna, which says that it must be buried, speaks of

the hair

itself, which was not woven.

Because if it has already been woven into a sack, since it does not disintegrate for a long time

, there is concern that if it is buried, someone will find it and not know that it was made from hair prohibited for benefit. Therefore, the Sages said that both a nazirite’s hair and the firstborn donkey’s hair, if woven into a garment, must be burned so that no one will benefit from them .

It was also stated

—we likewise learned that earlier amoraim disputed the two answers concerning a nazirite’s hair [and below another answer will be given concerning the firstborn donkey]:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Here refers to a sack, and here refers to loose hair.

Rav Elazar said:

Both Mishnayot speak of a sack,

but here refers to a pure nazirite, and here refers to an impure nazirite.

He said to him,

Tavi

: It should be nullified by the majority,

for it was taught: a nazirite’s hair and a firstborn donkey’s hair woven into a sack

, implying that a small amount of hair prohibited for benefit became mixed into a large permitted garment. If so, it should be nullified by the majority of permitted material . Why did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rav Sheshet say that the sack must be burned?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said

: It is referring to a small bird-shaped design

, meaning that they made from the hair prohibited for benefit the shape of a bird [or another decorative design] within the sack, to adorn it. Since it is a significant item, it is not nullified.

And we wonder: Can it really be established as referring to

a small bird-shaped design?!

If it is recognizable as a separate object,

remove it

—surely one can repair the entire garment by pulling out the prohibited hair. Why must the entire garment be burned?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Whose opinion is this

? The Mishna in Tractate Orlah that says that it must be burned—who taught it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, for he says

in our Mishna:

If one wishes to impose stringency upon himself and burn items that are normally buried—

he is permitted.

Therefore, the Mishna says that the garment must be burned.

Rav Naḥman said to him,

to Tavi:

We raised the difficulty

: “Remove it.”

We asked that it is possible to repair the entire garment by pulling out the nazirite’s hair.

And you establish it as Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?!

When it is possible to repair the garment, did Rabbi Yehuda say that the entire garment must 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 one should do so in order to repair the entire garment;

but if not

, the entire garment is prohibited.

And I did not answer anything concerning the question, “Remove it.”

Rather, concerning the contradiction between the two Mishnayot regarding the firstborn donkey—our Mishna says that it must be buried, while the other Mishna says that it must be burned—Rabbi Yirmeya answered that what we learned there, “it must be burned,”

we establish

—we establish that other Mishna—

as the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: If one wishes to impose stringency upon himself and burn items that are normally buried, he is permitted.

Now the contradiction is resolved both with regard to the nazirite’s hair and with regard to the firstborn donkey, and there is no need to answer by distinguishing between a sack and loose hair or between an impure and a pure nazirite . Even with regard to loose hair, that other Mishna says that it must be burned, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion . Another version : And we ask:

You may say that Rabbi Yehuda said

that one is permitted to burn it

by itself

, but

did he say this when it is mixed with another substance?

And we answer:

Teach

—teach the other Mishna as follows:

If he does not wish to remove it—

that is, pull it out—

and bury it, but instead wishes to burn it together with the garment—

he is permitted.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

And the Gemara explains:

The anonymous

tanna

gave us this anonymous Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, who says

in Tractate Pesachim [21a]:

The only way to destroy leavened bread is by burning it. But the Sages disagree with him and hold that it may be destroyed by any method of destruction.

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

We learned in our Mishna:

Items whose usual manner is

to be burned must be burned, and items whose usual manner is to be buried must be buried.

And the Gemara explains:

How so—which items are normally burned and which are normally buried?

which item is customarily burned and which is customarily buried?

A tanna taught

—we learned in a beraita:

Food—

that is, edible items—

is burned; liquids are buried.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may kindle a fire

with bread and oil of teruma.

And we ask:

Let us be concerned

—why were the Sages not concerned

perhaps

that if they leave these items until they need them for burning or kindling,

a mishap will occur

and the person will come to eat them?

And we answer:

Rava said: With regard to bread—

he throws it among the wood; with regard to oil—

he places it in an unpleasant vessel

, and in this way he will not come to eat it.

We learned in our Mishna:

A provisional guilt-offering must be burned.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must be buried.

A bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty must be burned.

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

The Sages taught in a beraita

: A provisional guilt-offering, a bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, and unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

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

The Gemara cites another beraita, which states that with regard to a bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, 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 in a case of uncertainty into the channel?

He cuts it into separate limbs and throws it into the channel, and it rolls along until it reaches the Kidron Stream, where the water from the channel in the Temple courtyard flowed.

We learned in our Mishna:

All items that are normally buried may not be burned, and all items that are normally burned may not be buried.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wishes to impose stringency upon himself and burn items that are normally buried, he is permitted.

The Sages said to him: It is not permitted to alter the prescribed manner.

And we clarify:

What is the reason

that the Sages said that one may not impose this stringency and burn items that are normally buried?

Because with regard to items that are buried—

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

their ashes are permitted

. Consequently, if he burns an item that should be buried, he may come to treat its prohibited ashes leniently. Therefore, the Sages said to him, “It is not permitted to alter the prescribed manner,” because this could lead to the lenient use of their ashes.

And we ask:

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

But

it was taught

—we learned in a beraita:

Menstrual blood

, which imparts impurity even when dry,

and the flesh of a corpse, which

has dried

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 the case

that we should understand the beraita to mean that they are

pure

from corpse impurity,

and

also

permitted

for benefit, even though a corpse is prohibited for benefit and is among the items that are buried? This would show that the ashes of not all items that are buried are prohibited.

And we answer:

No. They are pure

from corpse impurity,

but they are prohibited

for benefit from their ashes.

Rav Pinḥas raised an objection

: We learned in a beraita:

With regard to a bird burnt-offering whose blood was squeezed out

on the wall of the altar as required,

its crop—

the stomach—

and its feathers

, which are not burned together with it,

have left the category of misuse of consecrated property

, and one who derives benefit from them has not misused consecrated property. [But one who derives benefit from its flesh has misused consecrated property, since it is a burnt-offering and its sacrificial service is not complete until the flesh is burned ]. This is so 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.

What does “have left the category of misuse” mean

? Is it not that the beraita means that they

have left the category of misuse, and

also

are permitted

for benefit, even initially, if one dug them up and removed them from their place? This would show that the ashes of not all items that are buried are prohibited.

And we answer:

No! They have left the status of misuse of consecrated property,

since their mitzva has been performed,

and they are forbidden

to derive benefit from their ashes!

And we raise an objection:

And

for

are the ashes of consecrated property that are burned permitted?!

But it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

All those that are burned,

such as leaven, impure teruma, orla, and the produce of a mixed vineyard—

their ashes are permitted,

for example, for laundering garments,

except for the ashes

of an asheira.

And the beraita continues:

But the ashes of consecrated property,

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

are forever forbidden.

The questioner explains the beraita, which ostensibly presents a difficulty: why did it not state, “Except for the ashes of an asheira and the ashes of consecrated property,” both together in one group? After all, the law of both of them is the same; and why did it state them separately: “Except for the ashes of an asheira,” and “the ashes of consecrated property are forever forbidden”?

And he explains:

And it is only that he did not

combine

combine them and teach them together,

the tan nay did not combine them into one law,

because

their laws are not equal:

for an asheira,

is not forbidden “forever,” since

it has nullification by a gentile,

if a gentile nullifies it, in accordance with the law of idolatry that has nullification through a gentile; whereas

consecrated property—

has no nullification forever.

This is the explanation of the beraita. And the questioner asks:

In any event, it teaches,

in any event we learned

“the ashes of consecrated property are forever forbidden,”

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

The Gemara answers that one must distinguish between one burning and another burning, and sometimes their ashes are forbidden and sometimes permitted. How so? Any consecrated property that one used or from which one derived benefit—has gone out to ordinary use. In what case are these words said? When the one deriving benefit committed misuse of consecrated property and became obligated to pay the principal and a fifth to consecrated property. But if the one deriving benefit or the one who used it did not commit misuse of consecrated property, in the circumstances explained in tractate Me'ila—the consecrated property did not go out to ordinary use.

And now, if one kindles consecrated wood, if he committed misuse of consecrated property—the ashes have gone out to ordinary use, and their ashes are permitted. And 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 consecrated offerings that were disqualified in the Temple courtyard, whose mitzva is their burning: even though they did not go out to ordinary use through misuse of consecrated property, nevertheless, since they were disqualified, their sanctity was weakened, and they also became ashes—their ashes are permitted.

And that which we learned in the beraita, that the ashes of consecrated property are forbidden, does not refer to disqualified consecrated offerings, but to consecrated wood; and it also does not refer to a case in which they went out to ordinary use through someone’s having committed misuse of consecrated property with them, but rather to a case in which they became ashes on their own, as will be explained. And since no one committed misuse of consecrated property with them, they still remained in their sanctity and did not go out to ordinary use; therefore, their ashes are forbidden.

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

there was no person to commit misuse of consecrated property,

since there was no one who committed misuse of consecrated property,

so that

through his misuse

their ashes would go out to ordinary use.

Therefore the beraita stated that there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to their ashes.

Rav Shemaya said: When this beraita was taught,

in what case did this beraita say that their ashes are forbidden?

In the measure of a fistful

of the removal of the ashes,

which is the measure of ashes that the koen removes every morning, as explained in tractate Yoma [24a]; and concerning these ashes

it was taught that they are forever forbidden,

that they are forbidden for benefit even though they have already become ashes—

For it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita: The Torah said in the passage concerning the removal of the ashes [Leviticus 6], “And he shall place it beside the altar,” and we expound:

“And he shall place it”—

gently.

And we further expound:

“And he shall place it”—

all of it,

the entire fistful. And we further expound:

“And he shall place it”—

so that he shall not scatter it,

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 return to you, chapter “There Is in the Consecrated Offerings of the Altar,” and the tractate Temura is concluded.