## Temurah Daf 33a

###### Temurah 33a:1
[Temurah 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:1)

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if the *halakha* of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, **how do I realize** the meaning of the verse: **“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.” The verse is referring **to blemished** animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches **that they can be redeemed.**


###### Temurah 33a:2
[Temurah 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:2)

יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that any blemished animal **can be redeemed,** even **for a temporary blemish.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “Non-kosher animal, **of which they may not bring an offering,”** which indicates that only a blemished animal **that may not be sacrificed at all,** i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. **This** animal with a temporary blemish **is** thereby **excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but** it may be sacrificed **tomorrow.**


###### Temurah 33a:3
[Temurah 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:3)

וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד לַהּ הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: **And the Merciful One states** that one should **perform standing and valuation for** a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed *baraita* that appears in the *Sifra*, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. It may therefore be concluded from the *baraita* that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Temurah 33a:4
[Temurah 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:4)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Reish Lakish. **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: What is the reasoning of Reish Lakish, who said** that according **to the Rabbis,** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance were included** in the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** whereas animals **consecrated for the altar were not included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation?** The reasoning is **that the verse states:** “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. **And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad”** (Leviticus 27:12).


###### Temurah 33a:5
[Temurah 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:5)

אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב לְרַע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav explained: **What is an item** for **which** the *halakha* **is not divided between good and bad,** i.e., where there is no difference between unblemished and blemished animals? **You must say** that **this** is an item **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** which has the same sanctity whether blemished or unblemished. **And the verse states:** “And the priest shall value **it.”** The restrictive term “it” serves **to exclude** animals **consecrated for the altar** from the *halakha* of standing and valuation.


###### Temurah 33a:6
[Temurah 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar are also included in the obligation of standing and valuation, the term **“it”** serves **to exclude what?** The Gemara responds: It serves **to exclude** from the *halakha* of standing and valuation an animal that was **blemished from the outset** and was consecrated for the altar.


###### Temurah 33a:7
[Temurah 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:7)

וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, וְכֵן תָּנֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת, וְהָכְתִיב ״אוֹתָהּ״! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** this is problematic **according to the *tanna*** of the **school of Levi, who said that even** an animal that was **blemished from the outset** is **included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation. As Levi taught: Everything was included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation, even** an animal **blemished from the outset. And Levi taught likewise in his *baraita*: Even an undomesticated animal, and even birds** that are not brought as offerings, e.g., geese, are included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation. But **isn’t it written “it,”** which must serve to exclude some animal from the obligation of standing and valuation? If so, how can Levi teach that everything is included? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses **a difficulty.**


###### Temurah 33a:8
[Temurah 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who said** that animals **consecrated for the altar were included in** the *halakha* of **standing and valuation,** and therefore if they died without redemption they are buried, but animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance were not** included in this *halakha*? **As the verse states:** “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. **And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad”** (Leviticus 27:11–12). **What is an item** for **which** the *halakha* **is divided between good and bad,** i.e., between an unblemished and blemished animal? **You must say** that **this** is an animal **consecrated for the altar, and the verse states:** “And the priest shall value **it,”** which serves **to exclude** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance** from the *halakha* of standing and valuation.


###### Temurah 33a:9
[Temurah 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:9)

אִי הָכִי, ״בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that the verse is referring to a consecration for which there is a distinction between good and bad, then it **should have** stated: And the priest shall value it **between good and bad,** to indicate that this distinction is made. The term “whether it be good or bad” indicates that the two types have the same *halakha*, as claimed by the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: This poses **a difficulty** for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Temurah 33a:10
[Temurah 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: מֵתוּ תְּמִימִין — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים יִקָּבֵרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: With regard to consecrated animals that **died,** if they were **unblemished** they are not redeemed and **shall be buried, and** if they were **blemished they can be redeemed. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to** animals **consecrated for the altar. But with regard to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance, both unblemished and blemished** animals **shall be buried.** This is the statement of the Rabbis.


###### Temurah 33a:11
[Temurah 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says: Both** in a case where the animals that died were **consecrated for the altar and** in a case where they were **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** if they were **unblemished they can be buried,** and if they were **blemished they can be redeemed.** This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first clause** of the *baraita*, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that according to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and are buried if they died.


###### Temurah 33a:12
[Temurah 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:12)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could **say to you: What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with** an animal that was **blemished from the outset.** In such a case, the Rabbis rule that the animal was not included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and is therefore redeemed if it dies. But a consecrated animal that subsequently developed a blemish and died must be buried.


###### Temurah 33a:13
[Temurah 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:13)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — לִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּה בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **So too, it is reasonable** that the *baraita* is discussing animals blemished from the outset, **as, if you say that** it is referring to animals **whose consecrations preceded their blemishes,** then **Rabbi Shimon should disagree with** the Rabbis on this point and maintain that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar should be buried, not redeemed. After all, Rabbi Shimon holds that animals consecrated for the altar are included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from** this that the *baraita* is dealing **with** an animal that is **blemished from the outset?**


###### Temurah 33a:14
[Temurah 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:14)

אֶלָּא, לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if the *baraita* is referring to animals blemished from the outset, and for this reason the Rabbis hold that the animal is redeemed, then it may be inferred that the Rabbis maintain that if the animal developed a blemish after its consecration and died, it must be buried. If so, **let us say** that the *baraita* **is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of **Reish Lakish,** who maintains that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died.


###### Temurah 33a:15
[Temurah 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:15)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אִי הָכִי, נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Reish Lakish interprets** the *baraita* as referring **to** animals **whose consecrations preceded their blemishes.** Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis is in accordance with his opinion that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the *halakha* of standing and valuation and are therefore redeemed if they died. The Gemara asks: **If so,** then the earlier question recurs, as **Rabbi Shimon should disagree with** the statement of the Rabbis and say that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar are buried.


###### Temurah 33a:16
[Temurah 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:16)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵיפָךְ אָפֵיךְ, וְהָכִי מוֹתֵיב מִמְּכִילְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי: מֵתוּ, בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִקָּבֵרוּ. [בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — יִפָּדוּ.]

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reish Lakish reverses** the text of that *baraita*, i.e., he maintains that in that *baraita*, Rabbi Shimon explicitly states that animals consecrated for the altar are buried, whether they are unblemished or blemished. **And** he **raises** his **objection** to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan **from another *baraita*, like this:** With regard to consecrated animals that **died, whether** they were **unblemished or blemished, they shall be buried. With regard to what** case is this ruling **stated?** It is stated **with regard to** animals **consecrated for the altar, but in** the case of animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance, they can be redeemed.** This is the statement of the Rabbis.


###### Temurah 33a:17
[Temurah 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:17)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִסֵּיפָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Shimon says:** With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, if they were **unblemished they shall be buried, and** if they were **blemished they can be redeemed.** This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the latter clause** of the statement of the Rabbis in this *baraita*. According to the *baraita*, the Rabbis rule that animals consecrated for the altar are redeemed, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis maintain that animals consecrated for the altar are buried.


###### Temurah 33a:18
[Temurah 33a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:18)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could **say to you: What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with** an animal that was **blemished from the outset.** The Gemara notes: **So, too, it is reasonable** that the *baraita* is referring to animals blemished from the outset, **as, if you say** that it is dealing with animals **whose consecrations preceded their blemishes,** and the Rabbis hold that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried whereas those consecrated for the altar are redeemed, then **Rabbi Shimon should disagree with** the statement of the Rabbis on both accounts, rather than disagreeing merely in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.


###### Temurah 33a:19
[Temurah 33a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:19)

אֶלָּא לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן. וְנִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let us say** that the *baraita* **is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Reish Lakish,** as Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the Rabbis in the case of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers that **Reish Lakish** could **say to you: What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with** animals **whose consecrations preceded their blemishes.** The Gemara reiterates: **But** in that case, **Rabbi Shimon should disagree with** the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: **Reish Lakish** could **say to you: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees** with the Rabbis even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. The *baraita* mentions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion only with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance, but he also disagrees with regard to consecrations for the altar.


###### Temurah 33a:20
[Temurah 33a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/33a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקָתָנֵי ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara further discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. **Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says** that **according to the Rabbis,** animals **consecrated for the altar were not included** in the *halakha* of **standing and valuation, and it is taught** with regard to animals **consecrated for the altar**