## Temurah Daf 31b

###### Temurah 31b:1
[Temurah 31b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:1)

וְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב. אֵין נוֹתְנִין מֵהֶן לָאוּמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן — מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If animals consecrated for the altar became pregnant and then became blemished and gave birth after redemption, **their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside** the Temple courtyard is **liable** to receive *karet*. And the Temple treasurer **does not give compensation to craftsmen from** money designated for purchasing animals consecrated for the altar. And in all these instances, **that is not so with regard to** money **consecrated for Temple maintenance.**


###### Temurah 31b:2
[Temurah 31b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:2)

יֵשׁ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, שֶׁסְּתַם הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת חָל עַל הַכֹּל, וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּגִידּוּלֵיהֶן, וְאֵין בָּהֶן הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** elements that apply **to** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance** that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar, in **that unspecified consecrations are** designated **for Temple maintenance; consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all** items; **and one** is liable to bring a guilt offering and pay an additional payment of one-fifth for **misuse** of consecrated property, not only for the items themselves, but **for their by-products,** e.g., milk of a consecrated animal or eggs of a consecrated chicken; **and there is no benefit for the owner** from items consecrated for Temple maintenance, in contrast to some animals consecrated for the altar, e.g., a peace offering, from which there is benefit for the owner.


###### Temurah 31b:3
[Temurah 31b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** וּכְלָלָא הוּא דְּכׇל קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה? וַהֲרֵי עוֹפוֹת דְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הֵן, וּתְנַן: הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהָעוֹפוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה! כִּי קָתָנֵי — אַבְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara questions the statement of the mishna that an item consecrated for the altar renders an animal exchanged for it a substitute: **And is** it an established **principle that anything consecrated for the altar renders** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute? But** there are offerings brought from **birds,** i.e., doves and pigeons, **which are consecrated for the altar, and** yet they do not render an animal exchanged for them a substitute, as **we learned** in a mishna (*Temura* 13a): **Meal offerings and bird** offerings **do not render** an animal exchanged for them **a substitute.** The Gemara responds: **When** this *halakha* of the mishna **was taught,** it was taught only **with regard to animal** offerings.


###### Temurah 31b:4
[Temurah 31b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:4)

וַהֲרֵי וָלָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הוּא, וּתְנַן: אֵין הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: וָלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** there is **the offspring** of an animal consecrated for the altar, which **is consecrated for the altar, and** yet **we learned** in a mishna (*Temura* 12a): **The offspring** of an animal consecrated for the altar **does not render** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** The Gemara responds: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna here (31a)? It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The offspring** of an animal consecrated for the altar **renders** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute.**


###### Temurah 31b:5
[Temurah 31b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:5)

וַהֲרֵי תְּמוּרָה עַצְמָהּ, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וּתְנַן: אֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה! כִּי קָתָנֵי — אַעִיקַּר זִיבְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** there is the case of **a substitute itself, which** is **consecrated for the altar, and** yet **we learned** in that mishna (12a): **A substitute does not render** an animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** The Gemara responds: **When** this principle, that all animals consecrated for the altar render an animal exchanged for them a substitute, **was taught** in the mishna, it was taught only **with regard to the principal offering,** i.e., an animal initially consecrated as an offering, not an animal consecrated by extension, e.g., a substitute.


###### Temurah 31b:6
[Temurah 31b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:6)

הַשְׁתָּא דַאֲתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כִּי קָתָנֵי — אַעִיקַּר זִיבְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Now that you have arrived at this** qualification of the established principle, one does not need to resolve the difficulty from the case of offspring of consecrated animals by saying that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, **you** may **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that the offspring of an animal does not render an animal exchanged for it a substitute, since **when** this principle **was taught** in the mishna it was taught only with regard to **the principal offering.**


###### Temurah 31b:7
[Temurah 31b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:7)

וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין מֵהֶן לָאוּמָּנִין כּוּ׳. הָא קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת נוֹתְנִין? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְעָשׂוּ לִי״ — מִשֶּׁלִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the Temple treasurer **does not give craftsmen compensation from** money designated for purchasing animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara asks: It may be inferred from the mishna **that consecrations for Temple maintenance are given** to craftsmen. From where is this *halakha* derived? **Rabbi Abbahu said:** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states,** with regard to the mitzva to build the Tabernacle: **“And let them make Me** a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). The verse indicates that the Tabernacle can be constructed **from** that which is **Mine,** i.e., consecrated property. Consequently, consecrated property may be used to pay the wages of a craftsman for work performed in the service of the Tabernacle.


###### Temurah 31b:8
[Temurah 31b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:8)

יֵשׁ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת כּוּ׳. אָמַר מָר: סְתָם הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְחָל עַל הַכֹּל. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **there are** elements that apply **to** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance** that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar, as unspecified consecrations are designated for Temple maintenance rather than for the altar. Additionally, consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all items, but not all items may be consecrated for the altar. The Gemara discusses these *halakhot*: **The Master said** in the mishna that **unspecified consecrations** are designated **for Temple maintenance, and** consecration for Temple maintenance **takes effect** on **all** items. **Who is the *tanna*** whose ruling is stated in this mishna? **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mishna is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua.**


###### Temurah 31b:9
[Temurah 31b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:9)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, וְהָיָה בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 4:7): In the case of **one who consecrates his possessions** without specification, **and among** the consecrated property **there was an animal suitable** for sacrifice **upon the altar, male or female,** what should be done with it? **Rabbi Eliezer says: Males** that are suitable to be brought as a burnt offerings should **be sold for the needs of burnt offerings,** i.e., to individuals obligated to bring a burnt offering. **And females** should **be sold for the purpose of** being used for **peace offerings. And** the **money** received from **their** sale is **allocated with the rest of** his **property for Temple maintenance.**


###### Temurah 31b:10
[Temurah 31b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:10)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים הֵן עַצְמָן יִקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The **males** are not sold; rather, they **themselves** should **be sacrificed as burnt offerings, and** the **females** should **be sold for the purpose of** being used for **peace offerings** and they will be offered as such, **and** one should purchase and **bring burnt offerings with the money** received from **their** sale. **And the rest of the property,** which is unsuitable for sacrificial use, is allocated **for Temple maintenance.** Evidently, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that unspecified consecrations are not necessarily designated for Temple maintenance.


###### Temurah 31b:11
[Temurah 31b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:11)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: בְּעֵדֶר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ זְכָרִים, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה, דְּלָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וּמַקְדִּישׁ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** this explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, stated by Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, **disagrees with** the explanation of **Rav Adda bar Ahava. As Rav Adda bar Ahava says** that **Rav says: With regard to a herd that is entirely male, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes** that suitable animals are brought as burnt offerings, **as a person does not set** aside his ability to consecrate to the altar an animal fit to be **consecrated for the altar and** instead **consecrate** it **for Temple maintenance.** Even if the owner consecrated these animals without specification, it is presumed that he consecrated them for sacrifice upon the altar.


###### Temurah 31b:12
[Temurah 31b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:12)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּעֵדֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אֵין חוֹלֵק אֶת נִדְרוֹ, וּמִדִּנְקֵבוֹת לָאו עוֹלוֹת — זְכָרִים נָמֵי לָאו עוֹלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua **disagree only with regard to** a case where one consecrates **a herd that has one-half males and one-half females. And** their dispute is as follows: **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that one does **not divide his vow,** i.e., state a single vow that must be fulfilled in different ways, **and** therefore, **from** the fact **that** the **females are not** consecrated as **burnt offerings,** as burnt offerings must be male, it must be that **the males are also not** consecrated as **burnt offerings.**


###### Temurah 31b:13
[Temurah 31b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:13)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חוֹלֵק אֶת נִדְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehoshua holds** that a person **does divide his vow.** Accordingly, the males, which are fit to be brought as burnt offerings, are consecrated for the altar, whereas the females are sold to those who must bring peace offerings, and the money from their sale is used to purchase burnt offerings. According to this interpretation, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that one does not consecrate for Temple maintenance an animal fit for the altar. Consequently, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer either.


###### Temurah 31b:14
[Temurah 31b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:14)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה, דְּלָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וּמַקְדֵּישׁ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Some say another version** of the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. **Rav Adda bar Ahava says** that **Rav says: In** a case **where** one **consecrated** without specification **only** the type of **animal** that is suitable as an offering, **even Rabbi Eliezer concedes** that all the animals are consecrated for the altar. Accordingly, the males are brought as burnt offerings, and the females are sold to those who require peace offerings, and the money from their sale is used to purchase burnt offerings. The reason is **that a person does not set** aside his ability to consecrate for the altar an animal fit to be **consecrated for the altar and** instead **consecrate** it **for Temple maintenance.**


###### Temurah 31b:15
[Temurah 31b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:15)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאָר נְכָסִים עִמָּהֶן, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אֵין אָדָם חוֹלֵק אֶת נִדְרוֹ, מִדִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים לָא לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבַּח, בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי לָא לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: אָדָם חוֹלֵק אֶת נִדְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree only** with regard to a case **where there is other property** that was consecrated **with** the animals. **And** their dispute is as follows: **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **a person does not divide his vow.** Consequently, **from** the fact **that** the **other property is not consecrated for the altar,** as it is not fit for sacrifice, it must be that the **animals are also not consecrated for the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds** that **a person divides his vow.** Accordingly, the animals are consecrated for the altar, while the other property is consecrated for Temple maintenance. According to this explanation as well, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinions of either Rabbi Yehoshua or Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Temurah 31b:16
[Temurah 31b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:16)

וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — בִּשְׁלָמָא לְלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: ״עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the two versions of the explanation of Rav Adda bar Ahava, in light of the statement of Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna cited above in *Shekalim* (4:7): **And** the **money** from **their** sale is **allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.** The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the latter version,** that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that when one consecrates animals and other property he does not divide his vow, and as some of his property is unfit for the altar, all of his property is consecrated for Temple maintenance, **this** explanation is consistent with **that which** Rabbi Eliezer **teaches:** The money from their sale is allocated **with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance,** i.e., the money from their sale is consecrated for Temple maintenance due to the consecration of his other property.


###### Temurah 31b:17
[Temurah 31b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:17)

אֶלָּא לְלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא, לִיתְנֵי ״יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״! תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to the first version,** that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one does not divide his vow even when he consecrates only animals, i.e., he does not consecrate some as burnt offerings and others as peace offerings, **let** the mishna **teach:** The money from their sale is **allocated for Temple maintenance,** without mentioning the rest of his property. The Gemara responds: Indeed, the mishna should be taught in such a manner, and **this is also taught** in a *baraita*: **And** the **money** from **their** sale is **allocated for Temple maintenance.**


###### Temurah 31b:18
[Temurah 31b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:18)

הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת חָל עַל הַכֹּל. לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְאֵיתוֹיֵי שִׁפּוּיֵי וְנִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all** items. This emphasis indicates that it takes effect even on items that one might otherwise have thought are not consecrated. The Gemara asks: **What** does the mishna mean **to add** by this emphasis? **Ravina said:** It means **to add shavings and fallen leaves** of a tree that was consecrated for Temple maintenance.


###### Temurah 31b:19
[Temurah 31b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:19)

וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּגִידּוּלֵיהֶן. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי בִּקְדוּשַּׁת מִזְבֵּחַ, חֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that **one** is liable for **misuse** of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and for **their by-products,** but one is not liable for misuse of by-products of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara elaborates: When the mishna states that one is not liable for misuse of by-products of animals consecrated for the altar, this serves **to add what? Rav Pappa said:** It serves **to add** that one is not liable for misuse **of** by-products of animals **consecrated for the altar,** such as **milk** from **sacrificial** animals **and eggs of pigeons.**


###### Temurah 31b:20
[Temurah 31b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:20)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: חֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין — לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — הִקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת מוֹעֲלִין בְּבֵיצָתָהּ, חֲמוֹרָהּ מוֹעֲלִין בַּחֲלָבָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **milk of sacrificial** animals **and eggs of pigeons,** one **may not derive benefit** from them *ab initio*, **but** if one derived benefit from them, he is **not** liable for **misuse. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to** milk and eggs of animals **consecrated for the altar. But with regard to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** e.g., if **one consecrated a chicken** for Temple maintenance, one is liable for **misusing its eggs,** or if one consecrated **a female donkey** for Temple maintenance, one is liable **for misusing its milk.**


###### Temurah 31b:21
[Temurah 31b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/31b:21)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹעֲלִין בְּגִידּוּלֵי מִזְבֵּחַ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי גִּידּוּלִין דַּחֲזוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל גִּידּוּלִין דְּלָא חֲזוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ — אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even according to the one who said** that one is liable for **misusing by-products of** animals consecrated for the **altar, this statement** applies only to **by-products that are fit for the altar, but** with regard to **by-products that are not fit for the altar,** e.g., eggs and milk, one is **not** liable for **misusing them.**