## Temurah Daf 32a

###### Temurah 32a:1
[Temurah 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָן מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, וּמַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי, וּמַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן, וְאִם מֵתוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אִם מֵתוּ — יִפָּדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** While the previous mishna enumerated differences between consecration for the altar and consecration for Temple maintenance, this mishna enumerates *halakhot* that apply to both. With regard to **both** animals **consecrated for the altar and** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance, one may not alter their** designation **from** one form of **sanctity to** another form of **sanctity. But one may consecrate** animals already **consecrated** for the altar by **a consecration of** their **value,** and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance. **And one may dedicate them** for the purpose of giving their value to the priests. **And if** animals consecrated either for the altar or for Temple maintenance **died, they must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says:** Although that is the *halakha* with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, **if** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed.**


###### Temurah 32a:2
[Temurah 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״ — כׇּל חֵרֶם דְּקֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הָוֵי, הָהוּא לַה׳ לֶיהֱוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Huna says:** With regard to animals **consecrated for the altar, if one associated** such objects of his vow **with dedications** for the **priests,** i.e., he vowed to give their value as a dedication to the priests, **he has done nothing. What is the reason? The verse states:** “Notwithstanding, no devoted item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; **every dedicated item is most holy unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:28). The verse is interpreted to mean that **any dedicated** item **that is most holy,** i.e., that was consecrated for the altar and then dedicated to the priests, **that** item **should be for the Lord,** and the priests are not entitled to it.


###### Temurah 32a:3
[Temurah 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ בֵּין לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rav Huna from a *baraita*: With regard to items **consecrated for Temple maintenance that one associated** with another sanctity, **whether with a consecration for the altar,** whose sanctity is more stringent than consecration for Temple maintenance, **or with a dedication to the priests, he has done nothing.** The reason is that one cannot remove the sanctity of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and he has no ownership of value in it. As for the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to choose the priest that will receive the offering, this is not relevant to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore it cannot be suggested that his act of consecration was with regard to the benefit of discretion.


###### Temurah 32a:4
[Temurah 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:4)

חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, בֵּין לְקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, in the case of **a dedication to priests that one associated** with another sanctity, **whether with a consecration for the altar or with a consecration for Temple maintenance, he has done nothing.** One does not have any rights to an item dedicated to the priests, not even the benefit of discretion, as the dedicated item must be given to the members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple at the time of its dedication.


###### Temurah 32a:5
[Temurah 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:5)

הָא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיס לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: Since the *baraita* teaches only that one may not associate with another sanctity items consecrated for Temple maintenance or dedications to priests, it may be inferred with regard to animals **consecrated for the altar that one associated with dedications to priests,** that **what he did is done,** i.e., it takes effect. If so, this *baraita* is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav Huna.**


###### Temurah 32a:6
[Temurah 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:6)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: כִּי שַׁיְּירַהּ — אַהָדָא שַׁיְּירַהּ, דְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִתְפִּיסָן לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֲבָל לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rav Huna** could have **said to you** that one cannot draw such an inference from the *baraita*, as it is possible that the *tanna* chose to discuss only those two instances while omitting the case of an animal consecrated for the altar. And as for the fact **that** the *tanna* **omitted** this latter case, **he omitted** it due **to this** reason, **that** the *halakha* differs depending on the case: **With regard to** animals **consecrated for the altar that one associated with** a consecration **for Temple maintenance, what he did is done,** and he must pay the Temple treasury a consecration of value, **but** if he associated it **with a dedication to priests, he has done nothing.**


###### Temurah 32a:7
[Temurah 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:7)

וְלִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי הָנָךְ! תַּנָּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — קָתָנֵי, דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** if so, **let** the *tanna* **teach** explicitly that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to the priests has done nothing, **alongside these** other cases of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and dedications to priests. The Gemara explains: The ***tanna* teaches** instances **where there are two** types of consecration with which the item cannot be associated, e.g., an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which cannot be associated with either a consecration for the altar or a dedication to the priests. By contrast, the *tanna* **does not teach** a case **where there are not two** instances with which the item cannot be associated, i.e., an animal consecrated for the altar. Although an animal consecrated for the altar cannot be associated with a dedication to the priests, it can be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


###### Temurah 32a:8
[Temurah 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:8)

תְּנַן: ״מַקְדִּישׁ אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״, מַאי לַָאו ״הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי״ — לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וּ״מַחְרִימִין״ — לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֵן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav Huna from that which **we learned** in the mishna: **One may consecrate** animals already consecrated for the altar by **a consecration of** their **value,** and one can dedicate them. The Gemara asks: **What, is it not** correct to say that when the mishna is referring to **a consecration of** their **value,** this is a consecration **for Temple maintenance, and** when it states that **one dedicates** them, this is referring **to dedications to a priest?** Evidently, one can associate an animal consecrated for the altar with a dedication to priests.


###### Temurah 32a:9
[Temurah 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:9)

לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְלָא שְׁנָא מַפֵּיק לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״(חֶרְמֵי) [חֵרֶם]״ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** this is not the meaning of the mishna. Rather, both **this and that** are referring to **consecrations for Temple maintenance. And** the mishna is teaching that there **is no difference** whether **he expresses a term of consecration,** i.e., if he states: This animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance, in which case the animal is consecrated **for Temple maintenance, and** there **is no difference** if **he expresses a term of dedication,** i.e., he states: This animal is dedicated for Temple maintenance, as in this case too, the animal is consecrated **for Temple maintenance.**


###### Temurah 32a:10
[Temurah 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:10)

וְהָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי, דְּתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי — קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַחְרִימִין אוֹתָם — חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים! וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן לְחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But this is not** how it is **taught** in a *baraita*. **As it is taught in a *baraita*:** One can consecrate animals consecrated for the altar by **a consecration of** its **value,** that is, **a consecration for Temple maintenance,** and **one can dedicate them** by **a dedication to priests. And furthermore, isn’t it taught** in another *baraita* with regard to animals **consecrated for the altar that** one subsequently **consecrated** their value **as dedications to the priests,** that **what he did is done?** The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Huna** is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Temurah 32a:11
[Temurah 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:11)

וְהָא רַב הוּנָא קְרָא קָאָמַר! אָמַר עוּלָּא: אָמַר קְרָא ״חֵרֶם כׇּל חֵרֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But Rav Huna says a verse** as the source for his opinion. Since his opinion is refuted, how should the verse be interpreted? **Ulla said:** That verse is not interpreted in the manner of Rav Huna. The **verse states:** “Notwithstanding, no dedicated item that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field, shall be sold or redeemed; every **dedicated** item is most holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The emphasis that **“every dedicated item”** is most holy indicates that a dedication to the priests takes effect on every item, even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar.


###### Temurah 32a:12
[Temurah 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32a:12)

וּמִי אָמַר עוּלָּא הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: הַמַּתְפִּיס עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Ulla holds that animals consecrated for the altar may be associated with a dedication to priests, evidently he also holds that they may be associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, as even Rav Huna agrees they may be associated with such a consecration. The Gemara therefore asks: **And did Ulla** actually **say this? But didn’t Ulla say** that **one who associates a burnt offering** with a consecration **for Temple maintenance has only the delay** of