## Temurah Daf 32b

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

גִּזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the **treasurers alone** preventing the offering from being sacrificed. In other words, the owner of an offering must stand over the animal when it is sacrificed, and in the case of a burnt offering that was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance, the Temple treasurer is the owner. Evidently, Ulla maintains that the offering does not require an appraisal for a consecration of its value before it may be sacrificed, despite the fact that it was associated with a consecration for Temple maintenance.


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

לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וְקָרָא לִמְעִילָה [הוּא] דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Actually,** this *halakha*, that one who associates an animal consecrated for the altar with a consecration for Temple maintenance must give the value of the animal for Temple maintenance, was instituted by **the Sages;** by Torah law, there is only the delay attributed to the treasurers. This is also the opinion of Ulla. **And** as for the **verse** that Ulla cites as a source for the *halakha* that an animal consecrated for the altar can be associated with dedications to priests (Leviticus 27:28), it is mere support for this rabbinic law. The verse actually **comes** to teach **that** one is subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse** in the case of dedications to priests.


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

לִמְעִילָה לְמָה לֵיהּ קְרָא? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the term in the verse “every dedicated item” serves to teach only that one is subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse** in the case of dedications to priests, **why does one** need this **verse** at all? After all, an expression of **most holy is written in** the verse, as it states: “Is most holy unto the Lord,” and the *halakhot* of misuse apply to all sanctified items.


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

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין מְעִילָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלָה בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִמְעוֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״, הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳. אֲבָל חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לָא נָפְקָא אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **And according to your reasoning,** that liability for misuse in the case of dedications to priests is derived from the term “is most holy,” then consider **that which Rabbi Yannai said:** The *halakhot* of **misuse are** written **explicitly in the Torah only** in the case **of** one who misuses **a burnt offering, as it is stated** with regard to the guilt offering brought for misuse: **“If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy items of the Lord”** (Leviticus 5:15). The verse indicates only that one is liable for misuse of burnt offerings, which are **exclusively for the Lord. But** the fact that the *halakhot* of misuse apply to **a sin offering or a guilt offering,** from which the priests or owners partake, **is derived only from that** which **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi taught.


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

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*, that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar…**all the fat is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 3:16). The word “all” serves **to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in** the *halakhot* of **misuse;** all the more so is it the case that offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, are included.


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

לְמָה לִי קְרָא? ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה. חֲרָמִים נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, בָּעֵי קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיִינְהוּ לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: **Why,** then, **do I** need **a verse** to include these offerings? After all, an expression of **“most holy,” is written with regard to** a sin offering and guilt offering. **Rather,** it must be that **even though “most holy” is written with regard to them,** nevertheless, **a verse** is **required to include them in** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** With regard to **dedications as well, even though “most holy” is written with regard to them, a verse is required to include them in** the *halakhot* of **misuse.**


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

גּוּפָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִיכּוּב גִּיזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד. מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת — אָסוּר לְשׁוֹחֳטָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara earlier cited a statement of Ulla with regard to one who associates a burnt offering with a consecration for Temple maintenance. The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: One who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance has only the delay** attributed to **the treasurers alone** preventing the offering from being sacrificed. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this opinion from a *baraita*: In the case of **one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance,** it is **prohibited to slaughter it until it is redeemed.**


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

מִדְּרַבָּנַן, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָהּ — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this *baraita* is referring to the *halakha* **by rabbinic law;** by Torah law, a burnt offering cannot be consecrated by means of a consecration of value, and only the presence of the treasurers is required for it to be sacrificed. The Gemara adds: **This too stands to reason, from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches: If he transgressed and slaughtered it** before redeeming it **what he did is done** and he is not required to redeem it. But if the burnt offering must be redeemed by Torah law, how can the *baraita* state that what he did is done? Evidently, the burnt offering is redeemed by rabbinic law.


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

אֶלָּא מַאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹעֲלִין שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת, וְאִי מִדְּרַבָּנַן — אַמַּאי שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּרְאוּיָה לִמְעוֹל בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מְעִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, what** will you say? Will you say that the *baraita* is referring to the *halakha* **by rabbinic law? If so, say the last clause** of the *baraita*: **And** anyone who derives benefit from this burnt offering **misuses** consecrated property on **two** counts of **misuse,** one for deriving benefit from an animal consecrated for the altar and one for deriving benefit from an item consecrated for Temple maintenance. **But if** the burnt offering is consecrated with a consecration of value **by rabbinic law, why** does one who derives benefit from this burnt offering **misuse** consecrated property on **two** counts of **misuse?** The Gemara explains that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: And** if the consecration of value of this burnt offering was by Torah law, **it is fit to** be liable for **misuse on two** counts of **misuse.**


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

וְאִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis with regard to animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Rabbis hold that **if they died** and were not redeemed, they cannot be redeemed and **they must be buried,** whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that this is the *halakha* only with regard to animals consecrated for the altar; animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this dispute, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the Rabbis, both** animals **consecrated for the altar and** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the** *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** as it states in the Torah with regard to the redemption of consecrated animals: “And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it be” (Leviticus 27:11–12). Any consecrated animal that cannot be stood before the priest, e.g., one that died, is not included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and must be buried.


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

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְרַבָּנַן, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says: According to the Rabbis,** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** as that verse is discussing animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. Accordingly, if an animal consecrated for Temple maintenance died and was not redeemed, it must be buried without redemption. But animals **consecrated for the altar were not included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** as the verse is not referring to such animals. Accordingly, if they died they are redeemed.


###### Temurah 32b:13
[Temurah 32b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:13)

וְזֶה וָזֶה, מוֹדֶה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ לֹא הָיָה בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** both **this** one **and that** one, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, **agree** that **according to Rabbi Shimon,** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included** in the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** and **therefore** if they died they are redeemed; **and** animals **consecrated for the altar were included** in the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** and if they died they are not redeemed. **And** according to both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, **everyone agrees,** both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, that if one consecrated for the altar an animal that was **blemished from the outset,** the animal **was not included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation** and it may be redeemed if it died.


###### Temurah 32b:14
[Temurah 32b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:14)

תְּנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְפָרוֹשֵׁי ״קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּתוּ יִפָּדוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish: **We learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Shimon says** that animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance that died can be redeemed.** The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Shimon: **Granted, according to** the explanation of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said** that **according to the Rabbis, both this and that,** i.e., animals consecrated for the altar and for Temple maintenance, **were included** in the *halakha* of **standing and valuation** and if they died they are not redeemed; **this is** why it **was necessary** for **Rabbi Shimon to explain** that specifically in the case of animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, they can be redeemed.** This serves to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, not those consecrated for the altar.


###### Temurah 32b:15
[Temurah 32b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:15)

אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי? לֵימָא ״אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the explanation of **Reish Lakish,** that the Rabbis hold that only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may not be redeemed if they died, **why must** Rabbi Shimon **explain** that he is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance? **Let him say** simply: **If they died they can be redeemed,** and it would be obvious that he is speaking of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, for if he were referring to animals consecrated for the altar, even the Rabbis agree that they may be redeemed.


###### Temurah 32b:16
[Temurah 32b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:16)

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא הֲוָה יָדַע מַאי דְּאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ — מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reish Lakish** could have **said to you** that **Rabbi Shimon did not know what the first *tanna* said,** i.e., he was unsure whether the statement of the first *tanna*, the Rabbis, that the animal must be buried without redemption, is referring to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance or to animals consecrated for the altar. **And** therefore, **this** is what Rabbi Shimon **is saying to** the first *tanna*: **If** your statement is referring **to** animals **consecrated for the altar,** that they are included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died without redemption, then **I concede to you.** By contrast, if your statement is referring **to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** then I disagree with you and rule that **if they died they can be redeemed.**


###### Temurah 32b:17
[Temurah 32b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:17)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **it is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** The verse states: “And **if** it be any non-kosher **animal, of which they** may not **bring an offering** unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). The Sages teach that **the verse is speaking of blemished** animals, **that they can be redeemed.** The verse indicates that one redeems a blemished animal by means of standing and valuation.


###### Temurah 32b:18
[Temurah 32b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/32b:18)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִם בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּפָדָה בְעֶרְכֶּךָ״ — הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אָמוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Do you say** that the verse is **speaking of blemished animals; or** perhaps **it is** referring **only to a non-kosher animal,** and it is teaching that a non-kosher animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed through standing and valuation. The *baraita* answers: **When it says** later in that passage: “And **if it be of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:27), **a non-kosher animal** is thereby **stated** as subject to redemption.